Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 09:49:47 AM
"NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/)
December 31, 2014
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267
Commission plans to select new director,
consider sportfishing rule proposals
OLYMPIA — The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is scheduled to select a new director for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) during a public meeting Jan. 9-10 in Tumwater.
The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, will convene at the Comfort Inn Hotel and Conference Center, 1620 74th Ave. SW. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8:30 a.m. on Jan. 9 and 8 a.m. the following day.
An agenda for the meeting is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/) .
During the meeting, the commission is scheduled to select one of four candidates for WDFW director. The commission interviewed eight candidates for the director’s position in December before selecting the four finalists.
The current director, Phil Anderson, announced in August he is resigning from his position at the end of the year. However, at the commission’s request, he has agreed to remain on as the head of the agency until a new director is in place.
In other action, the commission is scheduled to consider proposed sportfishing rule changes. The rules are specific to the mainstem Columbia River, its tributaries and lakes within the basin.
Public comment on the proposals – which cover fishing seasons, daily limits, and other rules – ended after the commission’s public hearing in early December. The proposals are available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/) and include changes that would:
Close all rivers, streams and beaver ponds in the Columbia River Basin to fishing unless otherwise stated in the rules pamphlet, and implement additional conservation measures to provide greater protection for juvenile anadromous fish.
Change open dates for most year-round lakes to March 1 through Oct. 31 for lakes in Asotin, Franklin, Kittitas, Yakima and Walla Walla counties.
Eliminate the retention of sturgeon on the Snake River and its tributaries. Catch-and-release sturgeon fishing would be maintained.
Adjust size and daily catch limits for kokanee in Cle Elum Lake, while removing daily limits for eastern brook, brown, and lake trout.
In other business, the commission will accept public comments on draft options for a new policy to address conservation and fishery objectives for Willapa Bay salmon fisheries. The draft policy options are available on the department’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/willapa_bay_salmon/) .
Also at its upcoming meeting, the commission will:
Hold a public hearing to discuss sturgeon management in the lower Columbia River, including the possibility of reopening waters below Bonneville Dam to retention fishing;
Receive a briefing on the Columbia River Fishery Management policy; and
Discuss the North of Falcon policy, which provides direction to fishery managers in defining annual salmon fishing seasons in Washington's waters. "
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 10:02:37 AM
It would be interesting to know what criteria were used to recruit and narrow the applicants, and what if any organizations contributed input to the process.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 10:03:43 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 10:04:37 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 10:05:13 AM
Notice that the Director sessions are closed to the public.It wouldn't surprise me if it's more a coronation than evaluation. My dime says they've already decided.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 10:06:50 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 10:11:32 AM
What do they think they'll accomplish by appointing Cenci? It'll create a greater divide in the Department and exponentially more distrust of it by hunters.Have you heard they will? I would seriously doubt that otherwise.
Post by: Skillet on December 31, 2014, 10:20:52 AM
:yeah:What do they think they'll accomplish by appointing Cenci? It'll create a greater divide in the Department and exponentially more distrust of it by hunters.Have you heard they will? I would seriously doubt that otherwise.
I would be disappointed if Cenci is even on the list of candidates considering his apparent ability to taint everything he touches.
Post by: jasnt on December 31, 2014, 10:22:20 AM
:yeah::yeah:What do they think they'll accomplish by appointing Cenci? It'll create a greater divide in the Department and exponentially more distrust of it by hunters.Have you heard they will? I would seriously doubt that otherwise.
I would be disappointed if Cenci is even on the list of candidates considering his spparent ability to taint everything he touches.
Post by: RG on December 31, 2014, 10:24:55 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 31, 2014, 10:28:04 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2014, 10:58:53 AM
Notice that the Director sessions are closed to the public.
Is the 8:00 to 9:00 time frame closed to the public? If not I may show up for that. It appears to me that the "Executive Session" at 7:00 is closed to the public, but the rest of the day is not.
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 11:30:33 AM
What do they think they'll accomplish by appointing Cenci? It'll create a greater divide in the Department and exponentially more distrust of it by hunters.Have you heard they will? I would seriously doubt that otherwise.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. They seem to completely ignore negative public sentiment regarding him and he's next in line.
Post by: RG on December 31, 2014, 11:39:10 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 31, 2014, 11:42:28 AM
In looking at the rest of the agenda there are many fishing closures being proposed as well. Those are a concern and smell a little bit like the same group who got the steelhead hatcheries shut down.I heard there was a petition passed around regarding wild steelhead and a bunch of new changes for them, maybe that is making an appearance.
Post by: bobcat on December 31, 2014, 11:43:29 AM
What do they think they'll accomplish by appointing Cenci? It'll create a greater divide in the Department and exponentially more distrust of it by hunters.Have you heard they will? I would seriously doubt that otherwise.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. They seem to completely ignore negative public sentiment regarding him and he's next in line.
If they make Cenci director, I promise you, I will NOT be purchasing a Washington hunting license. I'm already considering buying only a deer tag and not every available tag and license like I've done for about the last 30 years.
Having said that, I very much doubt it's going to happen. Really, what qualifications does Mike Cenci have for that position? I seriously doubt that he was even considered for it. But like I said, I can easily spend my time and money in other states, like Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 31, 2014, 11:51:48 AM
If they make Cenci director, I promise you, I will NOT be purchasing a Washington hunting license.I rarely support the "don't buy a license" protests that folks suggest when something doesn't go the way I like, but I would seriously consider doing so if Cenci is named the Director given the information contained in lawsuits against him as well as other information posted to this site by uc.
Post by: Skillet on December 31, 2014, 11:52:16 AM
Notice that the Director sessions are closed to the public.
Is the 8:00 to 9:00 time frame closed to the public? If not I may show up for that. It appears to me that the "Executive Session" at 7:00 is closed to the public, but the rest of the day is not.
Just being there to watch the decision is something, but the toothpaste is already out of the tube at that point.
You do have an opportunity for open commentary on the directorship prior to the executive meeting, and that is at 8:45am on Friday morning. Gotta take a day off of work to have your voice heard here... they could have very easily made an open comment period before the executive meeting on Saturday, but that was a calculated move to reduce those troublesome "opinions" to contend with.
Post by: bigtex on December 31, 2014, 02:23:41 PM
Post by: Skillet on December 31, 2014, 02:45:17 PM
Did they get back to you with the list?
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 02:58:41 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 03:02:52 PM
There is no way Cenci would even apply to be director. He's got many years of being an LEO in front of him before he gives up his gun and badge for a suit and tie. Rarely, do you see enforcement personnel become directors of the agency in any state. Also need to remember that Cenci isn't even an Deputy or Assistant Director within WDFW currently.
Bigtex is just saying that to throw you off. I have information which leads me to believe that he in fact will be the next Director. His secret association with Conservation Northwest gave him the inside track. It will be great to have a Hunt WA member as the next Director. :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 31, 2014, 03:04:14 PM
There is no way Cenci would even apply to be director. He's got many years of being an LEO in front of him before he gives up his gun and badge for a suit and tie. Rarely, do you see enforcement personnel become directors of the agency in any state. Also need to remember that Cenci isn't even an Deputy or Assistant Director within WDFW currently.
Bigtex is just saying that to throw you off. I have information which leads me to believe that he in fact will be the next Director. His secret association with Conservation Northwest gave him the inside track. It will be great to have a Hunt WA member as the next Director. :tup:
Big Tex for director! :tup:
Post by: stevemiller on December 31, 2014, 06:02:35 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 31, 2014, 07:17:53 PM
Post by: timberfaller on January 01, 2015, 12:25:13 PM
What is needed or will work for the "people" will NEVER be part of the equation for "Appointee" under him or any liberal.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2015, 12:39:21 PM
"Thank you John for the inquiry, the Commission, consistent with the exemptions for applications for public employment in the Open Public Meetings Act and the Public Records Act is keeping all materials related to the Director search confidential.
Tami Lininger, Executive Assistant
Washington Fish & Wildlife Commission
1111 Washington Street SE, Olympia WA 98501 (office)
600 Capitol Way N, Olympia WA 98501-1091 (mailing)
Email: commission@dfw.wa.gov or tami.lininger@dfw.wa.gov
WEB: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/commission)
Phone: (360) 902-2267
Post by: stevemiller on January 02, 2015, 01:13:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2015, 01:18:22 PM
Post by: stevemiller on January 02, 2015, 01:28:30 PM
Post by: WSU on January 02, 2015, 01:32:37 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 02, 2015, 01:38:57 PM
Post by: Bob33 on January 02, 2015, 01:41:39 PM
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
Post by: Skillet on January 02, 2015, 01:49:10 PM
You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
Tall order Bob. I'd be thrilled if they could come up with someone who is an open-government advocate ball buster. Lift up the rock and send the roaches scurrying. I am of the opinion that the light of day is the worst thing for corrupt governments. Half of the problems we are constantly talking about would take care of themselves if the liars weren't allowed to lie anymore and the cheats weren't allowed to cheat. Set it up correctly for the next guy that can come in and manage BOTH the Fish and Wildlife end of things.
This department doesn't need a Director - it needs an intervention.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 02, 2015, 01:56:18 PM
You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
I agree that we need someone who values all sportsmen. As a hunter, I feel like the wildlife has been neglected in favor of fish and shellfish. He may be a hunter but that doesn't mean it's benefited our wildlife management or hunters, as a result. I see it in how hoof disease was ignored for a very long time and mishandled. The fact that big timber going to a pay-to-play situation was seemingly a total surprise meant that someone was asleep at the wheel. Mismanagement is outlined in ucwarden's book and that lack of support he got in the largest wildlife trafficking sting in our state's history. The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.
I'm sorry if you liked Anderson, Bob. But there's been a lot of bad happen under his watch. I'd like to see someone come in and take more of an interest in our wildlife and support our hunting community like a game department should. Fish and shellfish seems to have plenty of support. I'm not saying that should go away.
Post by: Bob33 on January 02, 2015, 02:08:58 PM
I'm sorry if you liked Anderson, Bob. But there's been a lot of bad happen under his watch. I'd like to see someone come in and take more of an interest in our wildlife and support our hunting community like a game department should. Fish and shellfish seems to have plenty of support. I'm not saying that should go away.I wasn't a huge fan or detractor. I believe he was better than some of his predecessors, but certainly could have done more to help hunters. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on January 02, 2015, 02:17:41 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 02, 2015, 04:38:27 PM
Post by: Humptulips on January 03, 2015, 07:46:44 PM
You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
That is a stretch to call him a hunter. Charter boat owner for 30 years and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council before joining WDFW. He was only involved in Fisheries before becoming Director.
It seems to me he said he had went hunting in the past but every thing you hear about the guy revolves around fish.
Post by: Wacenturion on January 03, 2015, 10:23:03 PM
You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
That is a stretch to call him a hunter. Charter boat owner for 30 years and a member of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council before joining WDFW. He was only involved in Fisheries before becoming Director.
It seems to me he said he had went hunting in the past but every thing you hear about the guy revolves around fish.
Pretty accurate.
Post by: leed on January 06, 2015, 12:14:17 PM
The list is down to four.
You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2015, 12:18:53 PM
Believe it or not, the department and employees are prevented from opinionating for or against initiatives and are not suppose to weigh in on them. They can if asked appear before legislators and answer questions that are asked but only with specifics and even then must refrain from opinionating. The must take a neutral stance. I can't believe I just defended them on that but they do have issues from the top down, from region to region.
The list is down to four.You had Anderson, who was a hunter, and hated him.
Best to wish for someone who has integrity and values all sportsmen.
The fact that the department couldn't even come out and publicly say how I-594 would affect its own programs is indicative of mismanagement. They didn't have to oppose it. And, the outrageous and irresponsible wolf plan is a testament to his inability to stand up for hunting and wildlife. It's way out of whack in comparison to the other Northern Rockies states.
I understand they're not allowed to have an opinion for or against. Describing the effect of the initiative on the department would be different. It's important that citizens understand cause and effect. They could've clearly stated, "We're not taking sides. This is an observation of the effect of the initiative on our programs."
Post by: Bob33 on January 06, 2015, 12:54:45 PM
Believe it or not, the department and employees are prevented from opinionating for or against initiatives and are not suppose to weigh in on them. They can if asked appear before legislators and answer questions that are asked but only with specifics and even then must refrain from opinionating. The must take a neutral stance. I can't believe I just defended them on that but they do have issues from the top down, from region to region.One statement in the communication sent by WDFW to Hunter Education instructors after the passage of I594 was used by SAF as part of their lawsuit againist 594. Unfortunately, we have a legal system that creates this sort of aversion to taking a position.
Post by: chinookie23 on January 06, 2015, 06:23:59 PM
Post by: Man Tracker on January 06, 2015, 08:02:20 PM
Post by: Tbar on January 06, 2015, 09:56:29 PM
Inquiring minds want to know who...?:yeah:
Post by: Wacenturion on January 07, 2015, 10:49:39 AM
One person has already been offered the position. Whether or not he accepts is another thing. BTW he is a fish person.....
I would have really been surprised if not with this commission.
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2015, 10:52:03 AM
One person has already been offered the position. Whether or not he accepts is another thing. BTW he is a fish person.....
There's a shocker. They think that hunting numbers in this state have declined up until now? They've seen nothing yet. :bash:
Post by: WSU on January 07, 2015, 10:53:59 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2015, 10:57:19 AM
I think it makes sense to have a fish person. The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting. Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.
So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.
Post by: WSU on January 07, 2015, 11:03:47 AM
Post by: ipkus on January 07, 2015, 11:14:19 AM
I think it makes sense to have a fish person. The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting. Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.
So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.
Funny, you were just saying it wasn't fair to stereotype in the ALE thread?
The fisheries issues in this state are infinitely more complicated (ESA, tribal issues, multiple management agencies, international harvest agreements, etc.) than hunting issues, so it will always make sense to hire a director with experience in fisheries. However, along with that background the most important trait they need to possess is a full understanding of both the economic and social values of hunting and fishing activities, and that providing a quality product to the user groups that pay the bills is the only way for WDFW to sustain itself going forward.
Post by: NoBark on January 07, 2015, 11:20:06 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2015, 11:55:42 AM
I think it makes sense to have a fish person. The issues surrounding fish and fishing in our state are more complex and contentious than hunting. Whoever it is also needs to realize that they are not only in charge of fish and that hunting and wildlife is very important as well.
So far, this hasn't been a priority for the WDFW administration. It's unlikely to change with a fish guy in place.
Funny, you were just saying it wasn't fair to stereotype in the ALE thread?
The fisheries issues in this state are infinitely more complicated (ESA, tribal issues, multiple management agencies, international harvest agreements, etc.) than hunting issues, so it will always make sense to hire a director with experience in fisheries. However, along with that background the most important trait they need to possess is a full understanding of both the economic and social values of hunting and fishing activities, and that providing a quality product to the user groups that pay the bills is the only way for WDFW to sustain itself going forward.
Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.
Ever since the department was merged, wildlife's been getting the short end of the stick. They whine about poor hunter retention and then, do nothing about it. They don't incentivize people to turn in poachers. They don't back up the guys in the field making the busts and putting on the shoe leather. They don't support prosecution with cooperation. They neglect wildlife diseases until enough citizens speak out to have them do something. Wildlife is the red-headed stepchild of the WDFW and as long as fish people run the department, it'll likely stay that way.
Post by: ipkus on January 07, 2015, 12:05:05 PM
Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.
Oh stop with the drama, no one was bashing anyone. For someone who disdains 'liberals' you sure act like one.
As for the rest of your post, :tup: , except for the "they don't incentivize people to turn in poachers".
They don't?
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 07, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
Yeah, it's a real riot and this topic is exactly the same as an Indian bashing thread. Someone hand me the sarcasm font please.
Oh stop with the drama, no one was bashing anyone. For someone who disdains 'liberals' you sure act like one.
As for the rest of your post, :tup: , except for the "they don't incentivize people to turn in poachers".
They don't?
Not sure why you've taken to following me around, but it's getting creepy.
WDFW is nowhere near other surrounding states in incentives and working with private organizations to up the ante with regards to turning in poachers. If you look in the back of the OR games laws or MT, there are pages of sponsors who'll add to what the game departments offer for rewards. Our DFW needs to be doing a lot better job for wildlife all around. Aggressively rewarding the capture of poachers would be one good step. Another would be to get the legislature to up the fines/penalties for poaching. Make all poaching as serious as trophy animals are now. Add lifetime loss of privileges for repeat or aggravated offenders. And, as I stated before, be better at supporting the efforts of those working in the field. They're falling down on all of these things.