Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 09:39:12 AM
Let's hear your ideas on the focus of the ideal director for the WDFW.
Post by: headshot5 on August 12, 2014, 10:06:46 AM
Some people will argue that Washontonians are currently killing just as many bears and cougars as they did back when baiting and hounds were legal. It should be noted though that the population has more than doubled making encounters more frequent bringing up the kill rate for hunters without the aid of hounds or baiting. Meanwhile, the population continues to climb for predators and fawn and calf escapement continues to dwindle.
Post by: Netminder01 on August 12, 2014, 10:22:10 AM
We don't want a "yes" candidate and we don't need to agree with every decision made as long as we believe they'll get us and continue to make positive & balanced changes for hunters and wildlife alike.
My .02
Post by: huntnphool on August 12, 2014, 10:29:19 AM
It'd be nice to get someone even mildly interested in our wildlife.
Actually it's the "wildlife" minded administration overhaul that has put us in our current state.
What we need is someone interested in "game" again.
So to the OP, what really should be asked is "What do we want in a new Governor?" Without winning the Governors race, you may as well prepare for another left wing wolf lover.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
Post by: returnofsid on August 12, 2014, 12:27:29 PM
It'd be nice to get someone even mildly interested in our wildlife.
Actually it's the "wildlife" minded administration overhaul that has put us in our current state.
What we need is someone interested in "game" again.
So to the OP, what really should be asked is "What do we want in a new Governor?" Without winning the Governors race, you may as well prepare for another left wing wolf lover.
And for A LOT longer than a Governor's term!
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 12:31:06 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 12, 2014, 01:01:23 PM
Someone who grew up in this state and has been a life long hunter and fisherman.
A current hunting license should be a mandatory requirement for the new director.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 01:04:26 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 01:05:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 12, 2014, 01:15:04 PM
Speaking of which, can we also require that the new director read Operation Cody his or her first week in office?
Post by: Bob33 on August 12, 2014, 01:31:52 PM
He should be committed to Washington wildlife, not just professionally but personally.
He needs to earn the respect of his peers, staff, the public, and elected officials.
It would be nice if he had a passion for the job, and enjoys it such that his positive attitude influences those around him.
Personally, I don’t care much about where he comes from. Good leaders come in all shapes, sizes, and backgrounds.
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2014, 01:32:38 PM
Someone who will try to improve relations between wdfw and the sportsmen of this state. Stop pandering to the leaf licking, wolf hugging types.
Someone that doesn't look bored to death at the wildlife meetings. (One meeting I went to Anderson looked like he was ready to fall asleep). :)
I want a director who will make it known to his enforcment chief that ticky tack, b.s. type citations issued to normally law abiding sportsmen are not what they should be out doing. If there are laws on the books that they can technically cite someone for, but it is a b.s. law, they should not be citing for it. For example issuing citations to a hunter for wastage if he leaves a coyote lay is ludicrous. Same with harassing a hunter, accusing him of spotlighting, when he is simply walking out of the woods after dark with a headlamp on. (They need to be getting the poachers, not the guys that get caught in honest mistakes or little known laws).
We need a director that will do what it takes to get a certain tribe in the south-central part of the state to quit selling game commercially. Maybe he can get behind installing gates and keeping winter range a safe place for deer and elk.
Hoof rot should have been a higher priority than it has been. Only took 20 years for them to start to get serious about it. (So, hopefully when issues like that arise, there will be quicker response).
WDFW needs to find ways of getting hunters to kill more coyotes. Instead, wdfw has tried to eliminate hunting coyotes at night, want to eliminate predator hunting derbies/contests; they have stopped us from hunting coyotes with dogs. They are not doing the deer and elk fawns any favors by continually making it harder to take coyotes.
Apparently the director needs to step in and overrule some biologists. The cougar and bear bios are nuts. Spring bear permits could be issued for probably every GMU in the state. And the cougar quotas they have are a joke.
It's almost like we need someone who is a longtime hunter, fisherman, trapper, and is good in politics. Someone with a biology degree may be a good thing, but that could be bad too depending on their views. :dunno:
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 12, 2014, 01:37:09 PM
Post by: Northway on August 12, 2014, 01:56:24 PM
I want a director that will clean house in the enforcement division. Someone to get rid of Cenci. UC Warden opened our eyes to what is/has been going on by writing his book. Having Cenci still employed by this state is terrible. He shouldn't be employed by the state, much less be the enforcement chief. :o
Someone who will try to improve relations between wdfw and the sportsmen of this state. Stop pandering to the leaf licking, wolf hugging types.
Someone that doesn't look bored to death at the wildlife meetings. (One meeting I went to Anderson looked like he was ready to fall asleep). :)
I want a director who will make it known to his enforcment chief that ticky tack, b.s. type citations issued to normally law abiding sportsmen are not what they should be out doing. If there are laws on the books that they can technically cite someone for, but it is a b.s. law, they should not be citing for it. For example issuing citations to a hunter for wastage if he leaves a coyote lay is ludicrous. Same with harassing a hunter, accusing him of spotlighting, when he is simply walking out of the woods after dark with a headlamp on. (They need to be getting the poachers, not the guys that get caught in honest mistakes or little known laws).
We need a director that will do what it takes to get a certain tribe in the south-central part of the state to quit selling game commercially. Maybe he can get behind installing gates and keeping winter range a safe place for deer and elk.
Hoof rot should have been a higher priority than it has been. Only took 20 years for them to start to get serious about it. (So, hopefully when issues like that arise, there will be quicker response).
WDFW needs to find ways of getting hunters to kill more coyotes. Instead, wdfw has tried to eliminate hunting coyotes at night, want to eliminate predator hunting derbies/contests; they have stopped us from hunting coyotes with dogs. They are not doing the deer and elk fawns any favors by continually making it harder to take coyotes.
Apparently the director needs to step in and overrule some biologists. The cougar and bear bios are nuts. Spring bear permits could be issued for probably every GMU in the state. And the cougar quotas they have are a joke.
It's almost like we need someone who is a longtime hunter, fisherman, trapper, and is good in politics. Someone with a biology degree may be a good thing, but that could be bad too depending on their views. :dunno:
++Stop pandering to the leaf licking, wolf hugging types.++
What is a leaf licking, wolf hugging type?
Post by: northwesthunter84 on August 12, 2014, 01:57:11 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 12, 2014, 01:59:25 PM
I want a director that will clean house in the enforcement division. Someone to get rid of Cenci. UC Warden opened our eyes to what is/has been going on by writing his book. Having Cenci still employed by this state is terrible. He shouldn't be employed by the state, much less be the enforcement chief. :o
Someone who will try to improve relations between wdfw and the sportsmen of this state. Stop pandering to the leaf licking, wolf hugging types.
Someone that doesn't look bored to death at the wildlife meetings. (One meeting I went to Anderson looked like he was ready to fall asleep). :)
I want a director who will make it known to his enforcment chief that ticky tack, b.s. type citations issued to normally law abiding sportsmen are not what they should be out doing. If there are laws on the books that they can technically cite someone for, but it is a b.s. law, they should not be citing for it. For example issuing citations to a hunter for wastage if he leaves a coyote lay is ludicrous. Same with harassing a hunter, accusing him of spotlighting, when he is simply walking out of the woods after dark with a headlamp on. (They need to be getting the poachers, not the guys that get caught in honest mistakes or little known laws).
We need a director that will do what it takes to get a certain tribe in the south-central part of the state to quit selling game commercially. Maybe he can get behind installing gates and keeping winter range a safe place for deer and elk.
Hoof rot should have been a higher priority than it has been. Only took 20 years for them to start to get serious about it. (So, hopefully when issues like that arise, there will be quicker response).
WDFW needs to find ways of getting hunters to kill more coyotes. Instead, wdfw has tried to eliminate hunting coyotes at night, want to eliminate predator hunting derbies/contests; they have stopped us from hunting coyotes with dogs. They are not doing the deer and elk fawns any favors by continually making it harder to take coyotes.
Apparently the director needs to step in and overrule some biologists. The cougar and bear bios are nuts. Spring bear permits could be issued for probably every GMU in the state. And the cougar quotas they have are a joke.
It's almost like we need someone who is a longtime hunter, fisherman, trapper, and is good in politics. Someone with a biology degree may be a good thing, but that could be bad too depending on their views. :dunno:
++Stop pandering to the leaf licking, wolf hugging types.++
What is a leaf licking, wolf hugging type?
If you have to ask, you're probably one. :chuckle:
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2014, 02:09:26 PM
My definition is someone who wants an amount of wolves that is not healthy for this state. Someone that cares about wolves above people and other wildlife. A leaf licker is just a tree hugger........they don't want logging; they want everything left natural. They hate ATV use even if in a legal area. You get the idea.
:tree1:
Post by: Curly on August 12, 2014, 02:11:02 PM
Post by: gasman on August 12, 2014, 02:33:10 PM
Post by: baldopepper on August 12, 2014, 02:38:26 PM
Post by: Jingles on August 12, 2014, 02:42:38 PM
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 12, 2014, 02:45:58 PM
Did not see this as an option so will say it outright:dunno: :tup: Jingles ...how are the fires looking ??? little of topic but needs it :chuckle:
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 12, 2014, 02:51:07 PM
Someone with an IQ of 10 because you'd have to be an idiot to take that no win job.Hey! I'd take the job. I would probably get canned in the first week after sending a bill to BC and Alaska for all the salmon that are 'supposed' to return here but don't...yet WE incurr all the habitat improvement costs and reduced tablescrap seasons. If that didn't get me fired...then making all the wolf files public (including individual collar frequencies...so hippies can go wolf watching) probably would. If not that...then the year round unlimited quota with bounty paid for cougars likely would. And Cenci would have to clean house so fast it would draw a vaccuum in Olytown. Actually I'd probably only make it a day there. :chuckle:
Post by: Jingles on August 12, 2014, 03:01:12 PM
Haven't been to Incident base today or even looked at a map but still can't see the sky for the smoke and the fire crews still running back and forth in front of the house twice a day so hopefully they are going somewhere to get a better handle on at least containment lines. Heading out Friday for opener of Bear season and spend the day looking for Yogi, found an area with lots of berries and good sign far enough back that don't have to worry about other hunters or Trail walkersDid not see this as an option so will say it outright:dunno: :tup: Jingles ...how are the fires looking ??? little of topic but needs it :chuckle:
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Post by: jasnt on August 12, 2014, 03:33:46 PM
Did not see this as an option so will say it outright
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
+1
Post by: bearpaw on August 12, 2014, 04:30:19 PM
Must be a hunter/fisher
Must understand the issues facing Washington wildlife/hunters/fishers
Manage predators more aggressively
Improve Washington's fishing and big game herds for more opportunity and revenue
Emphasis on commercial poaching
Improve accountability and respect of WDFW
Stabilize tribal, big timber, and environmental issues that threaten wildlife/hunting/fishing
Aggressively cut the fat in WDFW due to upcoming budget constraints (15% reduction anticipated next year)
Use other options to reduce WDFW budget rather than simply eliminating wardens and hatcheries
Good people skills and good negotiating skills to negotiate in the best interest of wildlife/hunting/fishing/trapping
Post by: bigtex on August 12, 2014, 05:56:45 PM
While WDFW/the Director can place an emphasis on becoming more aggressive in the apprehension of poachers, they have NO say on the conviction. If we want poachers convicted then contact your locally elected County Prosecutor. It's not WDFW's fault that a bad guy gets away with something (if the officer actually forwards charges).
Post by: RG on August 12, 2014, 09:44:48 PM
Other characteristics that would be preferred but not required, no friends in politics, training in wildlife and/or fisheries management, experience in working with divergent groups of people,.
This person would be a clearly committed outdoors person with adequate experience to know the difference between theory and fact. They would be a been there, done that person who obviously values hunting and fishing and the outdoor experience. With no political history or ties they may not be open for influence from the special interest groups. They don't have to be a bio or know everything there is to know. That's why they hire the experts. They need to know the difference between reality and BS and have the right point of reference regarding what is important for the outdoors people and game animals of Washington. They also need to have a proven record of making decisions and standing up for what is right even if it isn't especially popular. In other words they need to have a backbone and a pair. The important thing is that this person is a leader and is willing to stand up front and lead the agency forward to do what is right. They need to be able to disagree with the governor and powers that be and must not be afraid to stand up in front of the media and say what needs to be said. They need to support and stick up for the employees of WDFW in spite of political pressure from special interest or other meddling politicians.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 05:35:16 AM
"More Aggressive on Arrest and Conviction of Poachers"
While WDFW/the Director can place an emphasis on becoming more aggressive in the apprehension of poachers, they have NO say on the conviction. If we want poachers convicted then contact your locally elected County Prosecutor. It's not WDFW's fault that a bad guy gets away with something (if the officer actually forwards charges).
Although BT, they have quite a bit to do with the prosecution in the way they provide timely assistance and evidence handling. We can see from Reading ucwarden's book that they don't always do that. In fact, the lack of this support led to an embarrassingly minor sentence in the worst poaching case in the state's history. The prosecutor has no choice but to offer reduced penalties when evidence is poorly handled or not provided. This is a major problem with our present LE administration and to me, indicates a department-wide attitude that prosecuting serious wildlife crimes is not high on their list of priorities. That needs to change. As someone else has mentioned, raising money by busting regular guys who make simple mistakes instead of going after real criminals seems to be their MO.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 13, 2014, 07:35:45 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 13, 2014, 08:12:02 AM
Poaching sucks on all levels. There are the accidental occurrences of poaching and consideration should be given, especially when someone comes forward on their own. However, whether single poaching or multiple, these people are stealing. In the case of commercial poaching, federal charges should be pursed under the Lacey Act. I'd also like to see all of the big game fines increased to where the "trophy" level is now, at least. In addition, I'd like to see more advertisements for private organizations in the WA Big Game Regulations which offer rewards for the arrest and conviction of poachers. Many states are far more aggressive with enticing the public to turn in a poacher. Although many of us would do it regardless of reward, dirtbag friends of big time poachers might be convinced to drop a dime on them if the reward is big enough. There is no honor among thieves for the right price.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on August 13, 2014, 08:37:15 AM
There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
:yike:
Dredging does not have to be at odds with fish, but I doubt there are any bona fide studies that show dredging is beneficial :chuckle:
Post by: lokidog on August 13, 2014, 09:07:28 AM
There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
:yike:
Dredging does not have to be at odds with fish, but I doubt there are any bona fide studies that show dredging is beneficial :chuckle:
:jacked:
I like many of the points mentioned, here's my short list of requirements:
Must be a hunter/fisher
Must understand the issues facing Washington wildlife/hunters/fishers
Manage predators more aggressively
Improve Washington's fishing and big game herds for more opportunity and revenue
Emphasis on commercial poaching
Improve accountability and respect of WDFW
Stabilize tribal, big timber, and environmental issues that threaten wildlife/hunting/fishing
Aggressively cut the fat in WDFW due to upcoming budget constraints (15% reduction anticipated next year)
Use other options to reduce WDFW budget rather than simply eliminating wardens and hatcheries
Good people skills and good negotiating skills to negotiate in the best interest of wildlife/hunting/fishing/trapping
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on August 13, 2014, 10:32:36 AM
Poaching
I cited commercial poaching because it seems we are already doing quite a lot to discourage individual poaching. One active commercial poacher can do a huge amount of resource damage with long lasting effects. This seems to be an under enforced activity in WA.
Enforcement Reform
I never agreed with the petition to remove Director Anderson but didn't want to post that in UCWardens topic. I think UCW's concerns are justified but that he would have been farther ahead to pressure the Director, Wildlife Commission, and Governor to make changes in enforcement management. That's just my opinion looking at it from the outside and not knowing any more than I do. I do thank UCW for his dedication and sincere efforts trying to protect our resources and improve the WDFW enforcement program.
Accidental Poaching
I most definitely agree with the thought that accidental poaching should receive consideration. For example, a guy shoots a turkey to fill his 2nd tag and accidentally kills an extra bird. While that is negligent I don't think it is intentional poaching and thus should have a lessor penalty, perhaps an option to simply pay a moderate penalty would free up prosecutors and wardens from court time prosecuting these more trivial charges.
Local Warden (Good Judgement and Public Relations)
I had a hunter 2 years ago who accidentally shot a fork horn mule deer in the late whitetail season. He had passed mule deer as he should and had passed some small whitetail bucks in hopes of getting a large buck he had glimpsed early in the hunt. Late in the hunt he lowered his standards and shot what he thought was a 2x2 whitetail, it was a mule deer. Definitely a bad mistake on his part, but he turned himself in, I prepped the deer to be cut up for the food bank, the local warden explained the potential poaching penalties but only wrote the hunter for a wildlife infraction. The hunter payed the fine, about $170, learned a lesson, and there were no hard feelings he felt good about doing the right thing by turning himself in. Had the warden cited the guy for poaching with the max penalty, I doubt the guy would be as inspired to do the right thing in the future if he ever makes another mistake or knows anyone else who makes a similar mistake. Also if the guy was forced into court, a reasonable judge would be reluctant to hit the guy with a full poaching conviction anyway.
Enforcement Reform
I also know of cases where wardens pile on every possible trumped up charge to make a guy appear to be the worst scum on the earth, that does not make much of an impression on many people and probably reduces public support for wildlife enforcement. I suggest charging violators for the actual crime committed, collect penalties, build support for sensible and effective wildlife enforcement. I think enforcement/penalties need to be reformed to encourage compliance, especially first time or accidental offenses, violations lacking criminal intent should receive consideration as such. Additionally in an effort to make room for more serious poaching and criminal cases in the courts, most wildlife violations could bypass the court system entirely with options to pay a fine and/or perform community service, depending on the violation. Save our court time for cases that are disputed by the alleged poacher, for extreme poaching cases, and for violent/criminal cases. If a defendant in a wildlife case chooses to go to court and if found guilty then there should be additional court costs added to the penalties for consuming the court/prosecutor time. I bet many counties would agree with a better program to lighten the load on our court system.
Incarceration
Only put the worst violators in jail that pose a threat to citizens, penalize most violators with asset confiscation, monetary penalties, and public service. We need to reduce the load on our system and only put violent criminals in jail. Keep everyone else productive in society even when paying the price for their poaching crimes. This same philosophy could be applied across the system for many types of crimes.
Post by: Stein on August 13, 2014, 10:36:09 AM
Post by: Forks on August 13, 2014, 03:27:29 PM
I vote none of the above. His/her #1 job should be securing permanent and adequate funding from the legislature. The rest of the crew can work through the issues mentioned.You have it nailed, funding is everything. The new director will struggle to get federal funding like our current.
Post by: Wacenturion on August 13, 2014, 04:23:03 PM
I vote none of the above. His/her #1 job should be securing permanent and adequate funding from the legislature. The rest of the crew can work through the issues mentioned.You have it nailed, funding is everything. The new director will struggle to get federal funding like our current.
Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed. All the rest is just same ol', same ol'. A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees. An accountant isn't going to get you there. :twocents:
WDFW is too top heavy which leads to duplication of effort and over paying supervisors that are not needed in the organizational chart. Make people responsible for their programs and hold them accountable. A layer above them plays too easily to political correctness within. The farther away from the expert the less they know and that folks leads to poor management decisions. Believe me...I know.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 13, 2014, 04:50:30 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 13, 2014, 08:28:50 PM
WDFW boat launches....they typically look ill maintained for the most part. Ramps that drop off and can potentially damage your trailer, filthy restrooms, pot holed dirt with some gravel parking lots.
Take a look at say Cowlitz County's Willow Grove. Absolutely wonderful. Clean, can holds lots of vehicles and trailers, asphalt, with docks at the end of multiple loading ramps. Now I realize that it's big because it sits on the Columbia. Just take an example, scale it down and apply. You would get instant support and praise as well as a willingness to help fund it through drop box fees....like Willow Grove...$5 to launch.
It's so freakin simple it's stupid. WDFW Wildlife Areas could also be managed to be real showcases of wildlife management, but no, lets just manage like we have for the past 40-50 years...custodial at best. But hey....we've had probably 12 planning cycles during those years...what a joke. What good is a plan unless it actually contains directives that when implemented, actually do something. Most planning leaves that stuff out....coordinate with other agencies...meet with.....investigate.....research.....bla, bla, bla.
Want to get public backing....which means legislative backing....then actually do something that says you did something worthwhile. Get it? When the public backs something and helps pay for it willingly it stimulates other aspects of the economy....gas sales, food sales, motels, etc. If someone opts to stay home to avoid the crappy boat launch we all lose. Legislators back things people say are valuable and worthwhile....too difficult not to. Political hot potatoes.
WDFW has trained everyone to join their little pity party about lack of funds. Manage the right way, and just for as minute pretend, if you will, that that money you're spending is yours. Act like you are trying to make a profit even if that profit generally is in the form of customer satisfaction. Right now...it's just raise fees, reduce opportunity and keep kicking the same message down the road.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 16, 2014, 10:20:32 AM
Did not see this as an option so will say it outright:yeah:
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
also, how about a director who asks the legislature for actions beneficial to the game animals the agency was created to protect, instead of the requests to appropriate more money by expanding DFW LEO's police authority, as the deer, elk and other game species pay the price, since their workload just moved farther from their original purpose. (AGAIN!)
RE.....
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html)
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 16, 2014, 11:07:19 AM
Exactly ...its that simple but for some reason they continue to ignore it :bash: :bash:Did not see this as an option so will say it outright:yeah:
A Director that looks at the facts of past studies when making a decision instead of just listening to his " Tree hugging Leaf Licking gofors
Also being a Gold Miner with a dredge There have been numerous studies done that prove dredging is actually beneficial for fish and the WDFW can't get that through their heads all they say is it is bad they refuse to consider scientific studies. That is the reason I want a director that looks at the FACTS
also, how about a director who asks the legislature for actions beneficial to the game animals the agency was created to protect, instead of the requests to appropriate more money by expanding DFW LEO's police authority, as the deer, elk and other game species pay the price, since their workload just moved farther from their original purpose. (AGAIN!)
RE.....
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158913.0.html)
Post by: Stein on August 16, 2014, 11:50:13 AM
Quote
Permanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed. All the rest is just same ol', same ol'. A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees. An accountant isn't going to get you there. :twocents:
I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.
If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.
Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.
Post by: Wacenturion on August 16, 2014, 03:36:50 PM
QuotePermanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed. All the rest is just same ol', same ol'. A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees. An accountant isn't going to get you there. :twocents:
I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.
If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.
Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.
Sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you.
"funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you."
That's part of the problem..........depending on a few whose only decision is based in politics, rather than the public good and what's right for the resource.
Post by: Stein on August 16, 2014, 04:24:30 PM
QuotePermanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed. All the rest is just same ol', same ol'. A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees. An accountant isn't going to get you there. :twocents:
I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.
If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.
Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.
Sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you.
"funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you."
That's part of the problem..........depending on a few whose only decision is based in politics, rather than the public good and what's right for the resource.
Problem? Absolutely.
Reality. Absolutely.
The WDFW director isn't going to change Olympia, the best we can ask of him is to effectively fight for the Department.
Post by: bigtex on August 16, 2014, 09:32:55 PM
Poaching sucks on all levels. There are the accidental occurrences of poaching and consideration should be given, especially when someone comes forward on their own. However, whether single poaching or multiple, these people are stealing. In the case of commercial poaching, federal charges should be pursed under the Lacey Act. I'd also like to see all of the big game fines increased to where the "trophy" level is now, at least.
The Lacey Act is a great law, but can be difficult to use. For example, the unlawful trade/sale provision of the Lacey Act requires interstate/international commerce. So if I am killing elk by the truck load and selling it, as long as I am not crossing state/US lines I can't be charged under the Lacey Act. Now there are basically two other provisions of the Lacey Act that could apply; 1-illegally killing the animal on federal land 2-transporting the illegally taken animal through certain types of federal land. Typically #1 is only used for National Park Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service lands where hunting is prohibited. #2 is rarely used, honestly I don't know of a case where it's been used.
Using the Lacey Act would also require cooperation with the USFWS or NOAA/NMFS, as well as the US Attorney's Office. The Western WA US Attorney's Office is "okay" in regards to their cooperation with natural resource offenses. The Eastern WA US Attorney's Office is TERRIBLE in regards to their cooperation with natural resource offenses, and have been for a long time.
As far as the big game fines go, contact your legislator ;)
Post by: Wacenturion on August 16, 2014, 11:03:19 PM
QuotePermanent and adequate funding comes from efficiency's and accomplishing meaningful things for the resource that the public views as necessary and needed. All the rest is just same ol', same ol'. A director better be aware and smart enough to know the difference and be willing to not only make changes that lead to the above but also be able to get buy in from employees. An accountant isn't going to get you there. :twocents:
I hate to disagree with you but funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you.
If efficiency was the answer, we wouldn't have private jets for the governor or five figure artwork in public parks.
Your answer is great in a perfect democracy, but that isn't what we have.
Sorry, but I have to partially disagree with you.
"funding comes from lobbying, making friends, being absolutely carnivorous, finding buttons to push and finding ways of convincing legislators that their job is on the line if they don't fund you."
That's part of the problem..........depending on a few whose only decision is based in politics, rather than the public good and what's right for the resource.
Problem? Absolutely.
Reality. Absolutely.
The WDFW director isn't going to change Olympia, the best we can ask of him is to effectively fight for the Department.
Well if that is your expectation, then nothing much changes. A good Director could change Olympia, but as most Fish and Wildlife agencies go, they are few and far between over the years.
Post by: sakoshooter on August 17, 2014, 10:40:03 AM
I'm sick of the 'legal' "racketteering" that has gone on within our WDFW the last few years. I do not mind paying to play but what OUR WDFW has done to us is criminal, period. When you can hunt out of state for about the same money as hunting your home state, something is definitely wrong.
Post by: MtnMuley on August 17, 2014, 12:59:44 PM
I would like to see better and more predator control including baiting for bear, hounds for cats and state wide spring bear season (not damage control hunts that the timber companies are charging for). That will allow animal numbers to increase in conjuction with a large push in habitat restoration state wide. Give the animals a break and give them the proper amount of browse/forage then the numbers will expand. Work more with land owners to control populations with general season hunting and severly limit the damage control hunting. Then we will have more opportunities. In areas where numbers allow then increase tag availablility. For the birds work with landowners to create cover (wind rows, ditch lines), promote wildlife as a renewable resource. Be honest with the constituents (hunters and fishermen) and go to bat for them when required. Do what they can with the enforcement side of the house knowing that voters need to do their part and push for stiffer punishment on those cases. That will require working with the legislature to make the penalties stick.
I like your thinking. :tup: