Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 01:45:24 PM
Please grade their performance!
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/)
About WDFW
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is dedicated to preserving, protecting and perpetuating the state’s fish and wildlife resources. The department operates under a dual mandate from the Washington Legislature to:
• Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats.
• Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.
Department policy is guided by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission composed of nine citizen members appointed by the Governor. Department operations are led by a Director and an Executive Management Team. The Director is appointed by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 01:49:15 PM
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 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.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
Post by: bearpaw on February 17, 2014, 02:01:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 17, 2014, 02:17:45 PM
As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.
You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands
Post by: vandeman17 on February 17, 2014, 02:21:58 PM
I think the biggest problem for WDFW (and really all states) is in some cases they are almost forced into things. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act all impact WDFW decisions, and with the ESA almost every WDFW decision can be impacted by the ESA. So when WDFW (or any state) wants to change something the first thing they have to is basically look and see what they can do under federal law.
As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.
You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands
I agree and the federal regulations paint with a broad brush when the states should have more say because they all face different factors. No one size fits all.
Post by: ucwarden on February 17, 2014, 03:08:18 PM
I think the biggest problem for WDFW (and really all states) is in some cases they are almost forced into things. Federal laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act all impact WDFW decisions, and with the ESA almost every WDFW decision can be impacted by the ESA. So when WDFW (or any state) wants to change something the first thing they have to is basically look and see what they can do under federal law.
As an example, states don't have much say regarding migratory bird hunting. USFWS says how long of the season can be, what the limits are, what the methods of take are and let the states set the actual dates and any further restrictions. But WDFW cant come out with a regulation saying duck hunting is open 365 days a year like they could for fishing in the local trout pond.
You don't really see this with other natural resource type agencies. It's not like there is a federal law which states how states must run their state parks. Or how many trees DNR can cut down on DNR lands
BigTex:
I have agreed with almost everything you have posted on this site, until now. I partially agree with what you said, but I think you are giving WDFW an excuse for doing a very poor job. This director clearly comes from a fisheries background, and it shows in his performance. In my particular case; how he manages (or doesn't manage) enforcement. He has been made fully aware of the "issues" with WDFW enforcement, but has either ignored the problems or is a part of them.
I realize federal law trumps a good deal of the decision making WDFW faces, but they do a piss poor job with the part they can deal with. When I was in the field, I knew the courts wouldn't sentence suspects to what we all believe they should, but I did what I could with what I had available. I didn't just throw my hands up and say "it's out of my control". You gotta fight for what you believe in, and work your butt off. I just don't see this director, or WDFW management taking on the tough issues (tribal hunting, predator control, etc.) like I think they should, but go after fish or shellfish and they are all over it.
Post by: bobcat on February 17, 2014, 03:24:00 PM
Post by: Bigtine96 on February 17, 2014, 03:26:42 PM
I give them an "F" for their lack of willingness to do anything to control the tribal overharvest issue.
:yeah: in my opinion the most important issue we have.
Post by: Oldguy on February 17, 2014, 03:43:40 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 17, 2014, 03:57:55 PM
After reading "Operation Cody", I am convinced that if this is the way the WDFW operates, there is no hope for a positive outcome without a thorough house cleaning of the whole department. Is there anything positive that the WDFW has done in way of creating better hunting or fishing opportunities?
That's a very fair question. I would add " what has WDFW done to simply sustain opportunities we used to have". I know there are issues to deal with like population growth, habitat loss, ocean conditions for salmon, etc. that they have no control over- but the record in my lifetime seems pretty abysmal- especially in the last 20 years or so.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 17, 2014, 04:12:07 PM
Yes, right after the DFW was merged with fisheries...After reading "Operation Cody", I am convinced that if this is the way the WDFW operates, there is no hope for a positive outcome without a thorough house cleaning of the whole department. Is there anything positive that the WDFW has done in way of creating better hunting or fishing opportunities?
That's a very fair question. I would add " what has WDFW done to simply sustain opportunities we used to have". I know there are issues to deal with like population growth, habitat loss, ocean conditions for salmon, etc. that they have no control over- but the record in my lifetime seems pretty abysmal- especially in the last 20 years or so.
Post by: buckfvr on February 17, 2014, 04:13:20 PM
The big problem with wdfw is they all have such great jobs that they are unwilling to take a risk to right the many wrongs that are going on all around them. They feel since they are just following orders, its not their fault. BUT IT IS their fault for not attempting to correct the failures.
That is why top to bottom house cleaning is necessary........they all deserve to be in line for handouts........they cost us millions in wages and benefits all while failing us. ONLY IN a government job will you find this........SICKENING !!!!!
Post by: ucwarden on February 18, 2014, 07:44:14 AM
When you have inept management, and many of the departmental people, and down through the ranks know it, yet allow it, by not speaking there minds as a group, then they are just as guilty of the failure as the persons ultimately incharge.
The big problem with wdfw is they all have such great jobs that they are unwilling to take a risk to right the many wrongs that are going on all around them. They feel since they are just following orders, its not their fault. BUT IT IS their fault for not attempting to correct the failures.
That is why top to bottom house cleaning is necessary........they all deserve to be in line for handouts........they cost us millions in wages and benefits all while failing us. ONLY IN a government job will you find this........SICKENING !!!!!
I am not criticizing anyone at all, so don't take this as such, but it's easy to complain about what is wrong, but much more valuable to do something about it. I agree that it's time for a major regimen change, but now what are we all going to do about it?
Post by: Special T on February 19, 2014, 04:35:51 PM
The stars that i have meet or heard about are INDIVIDUALS that have found a way to overcome the beurocacy that is the WDFW. There is no good leadership from the department on the hunting side. I think i have heard more "the cup is half empty" from them than "half Full".
I do think they do a good job at attacking poatchers that work the salt waters, but that is it.
Post by: returnofsid on February 20, 2014, 06:56:53 PM
Here is the actual mandate as written into state law and last amended in 2000
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 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.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
I'm a bit bothered by how much of this 'mandate' is directed towards fish and how little is directed towards wildlife.
In this sentence alone, I grade close to a failure...
Quote
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Post by: Humptulips on February 20, 2014, 09:34:31 PM
I don't know how you will ever get around that.
Post by: bearpaw on February 23, 2014, 02:09:31 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on February 23, 2014, 02:32:48 PM
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
This is where things get sticky, because private property owners don't always do what's best for wild fish and game populations. In fact it's not always in their perceived best interest. Ranchers and farmers may want more water than is prudent for maintaining fish stocks for example. Deer and elk may harm crops. Then the farmers and ranchers may push for a reduction in game populations on public land, not just private land, because the state property (deer and elk) move freely from public to private land. And it's not just farmers and ranchers. How many people still pour ant-freeze down the drain? How many cars leak oil that ends up in ditches or storm drains? How many private property owners spray harmful chemicals on their yards or gardens? And the biggest source of harmful chemicals being spread that I know of are timber companies spraying herbicides. But examples are everywhere.
One place I do have a problem is farmers who want to be paid for crop damages but won't permit hunting (when and where appropriate) to help control the problem. They want public money to pay for their private losses, then treat a public resource like it's a private crop and lease hunting on their property. If you're going to take public money, you should allow public hunting.
Post by: snowpack on February 23, 2014, 02:43:56 PM
Post by: janttihunter on February 23, 2014, 02:53:31 PM
Post by: Odiewon on February 23, 2014, 03:28:16 PM
How do we get the authorities to do something about this?
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 23, 2014, 03:35:35 PM
Post by: hunterrcc on February 23, 2014, 03:36:02 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on February 23, 2014, 05:28:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2014, 07:07:06 PM
I am more than just disappointed that WDFW and DNR are not enforcing the law in certain GMU's that have the green dot road closure system in place. For several years now I have hiked in several miles to get to my favorite Elk areas only to find guys on Quads and ATV's already parked and/or driving (road hunting) on the closed roads. They manage to run the elk out completely within a couple of days. Last season I witnessed a guy who had an electronic cow call hooked up to the horn switch on his quad...he'd drive a little ways, stop, cow call (illegally with an electronic call) then move on and repeat the calls. All Day long!!!
How do we get the authorities to do something about this?
From DNR's standpoint they have 12 officer positions statewide including their Chief. Two are new positions added in 2013. There are a whopping two DNR Officers in E WA. There is one officer in Colville who handles the counties bordering Canada and Spokane County. Another officer in Ellensburg handles ALL other counties in eastern WA. One of the new positions that was funded in 2013 will be based in Yakima. Unfortunately this Yakima position has been advertised twice and is still not filled (so if you know a LEO who wants to work for DNR out of Yakima tell them to contact me for more info :chuckle: ) So you can see how dwindled DNR LE efforts are for their lands.
Post by: Forks on February 23, 2014, 07:30:50 PM
The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2014, 07:36:47 PM
What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.
Post by: sakoshooter on February 23, 2014, 07:44:24 PM
Post by: Forks on February 23, 2014, 07:46:06 PM
Post by: Humptulips on February 23, 2014, 08:15:06 PM
What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.
In reality they are all defacto appointed by the Governor, Commisioners and Director.
Not really the way it is supposed to be. Commisioners are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate but it doesn't really work that way.
If the Senate had to confirm before they could serve it would allow better representation by rural areas IMHO. It would make it easier to block more controversial appointments like Keyne.
Post by: bigtex on February 23, 2014, 08:34:37 PM
True. But Kehne was confirmed, and did have Republicans voting in favor of his confirmation...In reality they are all defacto appointed by the Governor, Commisioners and Director.What's better; having a Director that is appointed by the Commission (WDFW), or having one that is elected by all citizens (such as the DNR Director)?The Commision and Director job is so politisized they won't make any decisions that aren't PC.This is the simple truth. To many groups to please, not all will be happy.
I don't know how you will ever get around that.
Not really the way it is supposed to be. Commisioners are supposed to be confirmed by the Senate but it doesn't really work that way.
If the Senate had to confirm before they could serve it would allow better representation by rural areas IMHO. It would make it easier to block more controversial appointments like Keyne.
Post by: T-Dozzer on March 03, 2014, 07:31:11 PM
I give them an "F" for their lack of willingness to do anything to control the tribal overharvest issue.
:yeah: