Post by: denali on January 09, 2015, 03:56:36 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife director Phil Anderson will depart Jan. 31 after six years. Anderson tells the Capital Press he's proud of the department's focus on conservation, disappointed that the department hasn't achieved its wolf management goals and that he believes ranchers Len McIrvin and Dave Dashiell were treated fairly.
The departing leader of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife says his biggest disappointment is that there isn’t more common ground between ranchers and wolf supporters.
Phil Anderson is slated to end his six-year tenure as director on Jan. 31. Anderson informed the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission last August of his plans to allow ample time to find a successor. He expects his replacement to be selected shortly. He also expects to name new members of the wolf advisory group, which includes people representing different perspectives in wolf recovery and management.
Anderson participated in a question-and-answer session with the Capital Press by phone Jan. 8.
Q. Why decide to leave now?
Anderson: I’ve been in this position for about six years, and I’m creeping up on 65. I have a few other things I’d like to do, both from a personal perspective as well as a work perspective, in my remaining years. I thought this was a good time for me to move on and for the commissioners to find my replacement.
Q. What are you most proud of from your time as director?
Anderson: We were confronted with a big budget challenge right when I took on the role as interim director in December 2008. We suffered a loss of almost half of our general fund support from the legislature, from $110 million down to $60 million over two bienniums. Being able to do some restructuring of the department while continuing to focus on our mission of conservation and providing opportunities for outdoor activities like fishing and hunting and commercial opportunities, as well as making some improvements to our business practices, that kind of scope of work and outcome is something I’m proud of.
I came in wanting to have a greater focus on the portion of our mission dealing with conservation, and initiated our conservation initiative shortly after I took office. We’ve done a number of things to enhance our conservation mission. We changed the paradigm of our fishing regulations, where fishing is closed unless opened rather than open unless closed. That allowed us to go through a very thoughtful process: Do we have solid scientific basis for opening a fishery for harvest purposes? I am really proud of where we are as an agency, using sound science to inform our decisions and placing conservation as our highest priority.
I am extremely proud of the staff we have here and the advances we have made in terms of working together as a team, bringing together all the expertise we have within the agency to issues of paramount concern of the public.
Q. Biggest disappointment?
Anderson: I’m disappointed we’re not in a better place with wolves in terms of a social tolerance aspect. We have four goals of our wolf conservation management plan: (Getting) a self-sustaining population, doing so in a manner that minimizes conflicts with livestock, doing so in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts on our ungulate populations and doing it in a manner where we have a broad base of social tolerance in terms of how we’re approaching conservation and management of wolves. I’m disappointed we haven’t been able to make greater strides in that direction.
I think the challenges associated with having wolves in our state were maybe not well understood. The growth and geographic concentration of growth in northeast Washington is something that’s put a lot of strain on rural communities up there and the livestock industry. I’m disappointed we haven’t been able to make more progress in terms of bringing people together. We’re going to continue to work hard to make progress.
Q. Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would have done differently with wolves and livestock conflicts?
Anderson: It’s not necessarily something I have within my control under the authority of the director, but I think looking at our conservation and management plan and how we respond when we have a concentration of the population in one particular area of the state — providing ourselves some additional flexibility to deal with that in a manner that doesn’t undermine the recovery of the species, but at the same time, gives us some more flexibility to deal with the impacts in the area. I think the adaptive management piece and flexibility piece in the conservation management plan, knowing what I know now, making some recommendations to the commission on how we might put ourselves in a better position to be more adaptive if that set of circumstances were to come along in an area.
It doesn’t mean it can’t be done now. But just in looking back, had I known what I know now, it would have been something I would have advocated be built into the plan a little more than it is.
Q. Were ranchers Len McIrvin and Dave Dashiell treated fairly by the department?
Anderson: I think they were treated fairly, yes. We poured a lot of resources into trying to assist them, work through the issues associated with (the Wedge and Huckleberry packs). I think, frankly, there’s a lot of misunderstanding about what we did and why we did it. The feeling that we abandoned them, I think, is misplaced. I don’t think we abandoned them at all. Those who feel that way perhaps don’t understand exactly what went on. That in no way is intended to minimize in any way the hardship Dave and Julie (Dashiell) were under as they went through a really difficult time.
Q. What’s the source of that misunderstanding?
Anderson: I think as we went through the final days there, when we put the helicopter on the ground, the reason we didn’t fly and pulled the traps out over Labor Day weekend, with the intent of putting them back in, and then Dave and Julie understandably (moved) their animals the Tuesday immediately following Labor Day. All that sequence of events led some people to conclude we had abandoned them, and I just don’t think that’s a fair portrayal of what we did.
Q. What should ranchers expect from the department after you leave? How would you advise them to work with the department?
Anderson: I am anticipating we will stay the course and continue to put additional resources on the ground to work with livestock operators to try to help minimize risk relative to losses from wolf predation. There are a number of livestock operators willing to work with us and enter into those agreements to have a suite of nonlethal measures they are willing to employ. There are also segments of the livestock industry who are adamantly opposed as individuals to entering into those agreements and working with us. I’m hoping the number in that camp will reduce and we will have a greater degree of collaboration and cooperation between the department and livestock operators. We’re committed to work with them and try to do everything we can to minimize conflict. They can expect that to continue and expect us to enhance those efforts in the years to come.
Q. How does the department balance the viewpoints of ranchers who are against wolves and wolf supporters who are against any lethal measures?
Anderson: I continue to tell our folks, “Stay true to your conservation management goal objectives, don’t deviate from those.” As soon as you deviate from those, then you’ve lost your footing. Looking for wolf recovery, doing it in a way that minimizes consequences to livestock operators, minimizes adverse impacts to ungulates and looks for social tolerance is the grounding piece.
It’s a huge challenge to accomplish all four of those things simultaneously, there’s no doubt about it. You could probably easily accomplish the first one and ignore the second, third and fourth one, or you can easily employ a strategy that would do two and three but not achieve one and four. Which is what makes this issue so difficult. You’re trying to balance achieving these four goals that are in conflict in many ways.
Q. Advice to ranchers on wolf supporters?
Anderson: (The wolf advisory group) is the table in which I’m hoping to continue to work to find commonalities and common ground between different interests. I’m hopeful, somewhat optimistic, that they will be able to make some progress and come to some commonality about how we go about balancing and achieving those four goals to the plan.
Q. Advice to wolf supporters about working with ranchers?
Anderson: Somewhat similar, working within the context of the wolf advisory group, the individuals that are there representing the different perspectives. We are also looking at bringing in some outside expertise to help us better put sideboards, parameters and strategies as to how we can help the different interest groups work together and find common ground. We’re working to do a contract with an outside entity that has expertise in helping work through controversial natural resource issues and we’re also bringing in a facilitator to help the wolf advisory group who is a person from outside the agency. I’m hopeful that changing the approach in how we take advantage of the people willing to give their time to the advisory group will help us get a better outcome and help the two major sides to this issue find common ground.
Q. Anything else?
Anderson: When I came into this position. I did not think there had been enough attention paid to wildlife issues, particularly on the east side of the state. I made that one of my high priorities: to spend time, get to know the issues in Eastern Washington, get to know some of our constituents, form better relationships with legislators as well as local governments, county commissioners. That’s another area I focused on that I’m proud of and I hope my successor will continue to focus on.
Anderson: "I’m disappointed we’re not in a better place with wolves in terms of a social tolerance aspect". :dunno:
I'M sorry , who didn't see that coming ? there was never any consideration of any plan other than 15 BP's and they would be concentrated where they are welcomed the least.
Post by: Curly on January 09, 2015, 04:17:34 PM
Why doesn't WDFW go and revise the wolf plan now? Would that make too much sense, or admit mistakes that they don't wish to admit?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 09, 2015, 04:21:30 PM
Post by: timberfaller on January 14, 2015, 11:04:02 AM
Right out of our indoctrination institutions!
Why do you think the ole timers got rid of them??? besides not having a college education! :o
Post by: csaaphill on January 14, 2015, 10:15:13 PM
That would mean the same with our hunting issus too wouldn't Closed unless open :yike:
and wolves lol
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 15, 2015, 08:17:58 AM
Post by: Curly on January 15, 2015, 08:42:11 AM
No regrets about the management (or lack thereof) of hoof rot, apparently. All must be good with that. Buh bye, Phil.
Yeah, I was kind of surprised that the whole topic revolved around wolves. :o
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 08:59:39 AM
Post by: Curly on January 15, 2015, 09:06:26 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 15, 2015, 09:13:45 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 15, 2015, 09:15:20 AM
When I'm within a few months of retirement...oh the fun (: 46 more years and counting.
Post by: Bob33 on January 15, 2015, 09:26:14 AM
As a hunter, it is painful to acknowledge that we no longer have a “Game Department”; rather, we now have a Department of Fish and Wildlife. Their constituencies include not only hunters, but all wildlife users including bird watchers, people that love to hear wolves howl, commercial fisheries, etc. The breadth of the Director’s responsibilities is vast.
How he addresses the wolf issue will be closely watched by all parties. He’s already been branded a “wolf hater” and “gun nut” by one side, and is coming under scrutiny from others for not doing enough to eradicate wolves from Idaho.
I am hopeful that the signals he sends in his early months in office will be positive. He needs to act quickly to favorably acknowledge the value of hunting in Washington. He should clean house with the Enforcement division, but that will not be easy or quick. Cenci is liked by some very influential individuals both inside and outside of the department, and removing tenured government employees is never an easy task.
Post by: Forks on January 16, 2015, 01:00:43 PM
I thought Mike Cenci is Phil Anderson's son's boss? If that's true then it's doubtful that Phil would want to do anything that might jeapordize his son's job.Are you serious?
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2015, 01:13:11 PM
Post by: Forks on January 16, 2015, 01:17:36 PM
About what?Your assumption is funny.
Post by: Curly on January 16, 2015, 01:22:12 PM
About what?Your assumption is funny.
I'm not sure it is an assumption as much as it is a fact............
Post by: bobcat on January 16, 2015, 04:30:26 PM
About what?Your assumption is funny.
It's not really my assumption. It's a theory I read on here that was posted by someone else who knows more about this than I do.