Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 06:02:58 AM
www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true)
You will want to start the video at 01:01:00, then make sure and watch it through 01:11:45
It's priceless
Post by: jjhunter on February 11, 2017, 07:16:56 AM
Post by: THunt on February 11, 2017, 07:19:04 AM
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 07:49:03 AM
Ouch!
I guess I am not the only one who is tired of the pathetic way WDFW is being run.
Post by: 7mmstalker on February 11, 2017, 07:51:11 AM
The issues Wa. State has with managing wildlife are not the only reason my family and I left the state, but it was an important factor. My wife, son and I were all born and raised in Washington. My son will grow into adulthood in Alaska, life here is far from perfect, but there is a better balance of independent minded people, and still pretty good fishing and hunting.
We spend a lot of our recreational budget on outdoor activities. The cost for our small family of three to participate in fishing and hunting seemed out of proportion to the return on that investment. I certainly understand the "value of the experience", but, as one of two full time+ workers in the family, I want a reasonable chance at putting some quality meat in the freezer.
Of course it is easy to play armchair quarterback and keyboard warrior / expert. So I willingly admit that I personally don't have a solution to the issue of lacking abundance. Likely at the core of the problem is increased pressure on the resources.
I remember vaguely in the 1970's and 80's the salmon fishing and goose hunting were restricted pretty heavily. Geese seem to be pretty abundant now. Salmon, well they are challenging, for all involved to get the harvest level that they want. The complexity of the environment that affects the salmon seems to be a major hurdle. I'm just a guy that likes to hunt and fish, not a biologist.
The one fact that is obvious to me is allocating more $ to bureaucrats and special interest groups won't do a thing to improve the quality of outdoor recreation!
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 07:57:01 AM
Post by: Forks on February 11, 2017, 07:59:03 AM
Post by: nwwanderer on February 11, 2017, 08:05:37 AM
Post by: jpharcher on February 11, 2017, 08:06:22 AM
Talk about a public speaker with Zero ability to speak publicly trying to sell lies and getting caught!
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 08:09:57 AM
So he basically lied to the Senate. I'm glad they read the comments before his appearance. I was disappointed not a single negative remark was quoted and not a word mentioned about the incredibly huge problem in Enforcement management.True, but at least some people outside of WDFW are apparently beginning to notice the significant and unaddressed corruption issues which thrive right under Unsworth's nose, while he takes no action at all. It's a start
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 08:14:01 AM
UC, who would be your choice for a new Director? Everyone wanted a new one a couple years ago and the Commission came up with this tool.I have no idea who would be a good candidate for director, and anyone I endorse on this public forum would instantly be labeled as an enemy of the WDFW admin., just based on any perceived relationship with me.
I do know that I have no respect for either Director Unsworth or Deputy Director Stohr, and in my opinion; both need to go. They have had all the time and evidence to fix some very serious problems with their own agency, and they have done nothing positive at all.
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 08:14:47 AM
What an ABSOLUTE TOOL, Does he even believe anything he said?Kinda painful to listen to him speak, isn't it?
Talk about a public speaker with Zero ability to speak publicly trying to sell lies and getting caught!
Post by: fisheral87 on February 11, 2017, 08:20:26 AM
Who was the Senator who objected to his statement?
Al
Post by: Forks on February 11, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
UC, who would be your choice for a new Director? Everyone wanted a new one a couple years ago and the Commission came up with this tool.I have no idea who would be a good candidate for director, and anyone I endorse on this public forum would instantly be labeled as an enemy of the WDFW admin., just based on any perceived relationship with me.
I do know that I have no respect for either Director Unsworth or Deputy Director Stohr, and in my opinion; both need to go. They have had all the time and evidence to fix some very serious problems with their own agency, and they have done nothing positive at all.
It seems a extremely difficult situation. Who the hell would want the job? People jumping ship at the agency and a uncertain direction of the Commission. I try to live a optimistic life but this seems like trying to summit Everest with no training or oxygen.
Post by: Southpole on February 11, 2017, 08:29:11 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 08:32:08 AM
My letter to my Senator Lynda Wilson on the Senate Ways & Means was blistering. I hope she notices.So he basically lied to the Senate. I'm glad they read the comments before his appearance. I was disappointed not a single negative remark was quoted and not a word mentioned about the incredibly huge problem in Enforcement management.True, but at least some people outside of WDFW are apparently beginning to notice the significant and unaddressed corruption issues which thrive right under Unsworth's nose, while he takes no action at all. It's a start
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on February 11, 2017, 08:33:46 AM
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 08:35:17 AM
Mr. Unsworth did not seem prepared to present a strong proposal for budgetary support, instead relying on vague generalities and apparently false assertions about the state of his department and their operational effectiveness.I believe it was Senator John Braun from the 20th District......I think.
Who was the Senator who objected to his statement?
Al
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 11, 2017, 08:45:48 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 11, 2017, 08:52:14 AM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: olyguy79 on February 11, 2017, 08:55:48 AM
Love how he was called out for lying to them.If you actually read the Wild Future report it actually does say the public wants more officers. The Senator said that's not true, well I actually agree with Unsworth, it's in the report. In fact the two meetings I went to the main topic was increasing officers. So either WDFW lied and planted operatives in the meetings to support the agenda or the Senator didn't read the right report.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Support for fee increases? Not much support out there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: olyguy79 on February 11, 2017, 08:56:44 AM
So he basically lied to the Senate. I'm glad they read the comments before his appearance. I was disappointed not a single negative remark was quoted and not a word mentioned about the incredibly huge problem in Enforcement management.Because nobody outside of a few legislators care... Sad but simple truth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on February 11, 2017, 08:57:00 AM
It's beautiful to see a moment of truth and clarity.
I had hopes that Unsworth may be real slow, that he was making progress in a corrupted system slowly from the inside. It's now clear in my mind what kind of man he is and why we are in the situation we are. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2017, 09:03:54 AM
You can go in and actually read all 450 online comments. I'm sure some of your names are in there.
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 09:07:21 AM
Perhaps you are correct on the more officers piece of this, but you are forgetting Unsworth's claim of receiving so many positive supportive comments about the agency. That is what I heard the senator take exception with the most.Love how he was called out for lying to them.If you actually read the Wild Future report it actually does say the public wants more officers. The Senator said that's not true, well I actually agree with Unsworth, it's in the report. In fact the two meetings I went to the main topic was increasing officers. So either WDFW lied and planted operatives in the meetings to support the agenda or the Senator didn't read the right report.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Support for fee increases? Not much support out there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 11, 2017, 09:09:10 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2017, 09:09:47 AM
If you actually read it you will see a meeting summary, and the actual written online submissions by citizens. Everything is mentioned from Cenci to Obama and "black ops"I take it the Wild Future report is a summary of the publics comments? :dunno:Love how he was called out for lying to them.If you actually read the Wild Future report it actually does say the public wants more officers. The Senator said that's not true, well I actually agree with Unsworth, it's in the report. In fact the two meetings I went to the main topic was increasing officers. So either WDFW lied and planted operatives in the meetings to support the agenda or the Senator didn't read the right report.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Support for fee increases? Not much support out there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2017, 09:11:42 AM
Is it just me, or is this guy a politicianYou don't become head of any department without being a politician :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 09:12:59 AM
This is the report Unsworth was talking about: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/
You can go in and actually read all 450 online comments. I'm sure some of your names are in there.
Can you please provide a link directly to the comments? I can't seem to find them.
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2017, 09:14:52 AM
The link is the same for everything. You have to click on "summaries and notes from regional listening forums" you can then break it down by a summary for each meeting or the actual individual online comments.This is the report Unsworth was talking about: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/Can you please provide a link directly to the comments? I can't seem to find them.
You can go in and actually read all 450 online comments. I'm sure some of your names are in there.
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 09:16:07 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 09:17:21 AM
Post by: olyguy79 on February 11, 2017, 09:19:20 AM
:yeah:The link is the same for everything. You have to click on "summaries and notes from regional listening forums" you can then break it down by a summary for each meeting or the actual individual online comments.This is the report Unsworth was talking about: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/Can you please provide a link directly to the comments? I can't seem to find them.
You can go in and actually read all 450 online comments. I'm sure some of your names are in there.
If you read that then the Senator is lying. There are lots of comments for increasing enforcement staffing, the Senator said that's not the case, oops it is.
I know of several of the commenters and i know what's shown is what they submitted. No editing or anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: SCRUBS on February 11, 2017, 09:19:36 AM
If you actually read it you will see a meeting summary, and the actual written online submissions by citizens. Everything is mentioned from Cenci to Obama and "black ops"I take it the Wild Future report is a summary of the publics comments? :dunno:Love how he was called out for lying to them.If you actually read the Wild Future report it actually does say the public wants more officers. The Senator said that's not true, well I actually agree with Unsworth, it's in the report. In fact the two meetings I went to the main topic was increasing officers. So either WDFW lied and planted operatives in the meetings to support the agenda or the Senator didn't read the right report.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Support for fee increases? Not much support out there.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I removed this post ( well tried to)because you answered my question by providing a link while I was typing, thanks for the link.
Post by: Special T on February 11, 2017, 09:35:21 AM
Post by: WSU on February 11, 2017, 09:45:26 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2017, 10:08:48 AM
Post by: Bullkllr on February 11, 2017, 10:11:33 AM
:yeah:The link is the same for everything. You have to click on "summaries and notes from regional listening forums" you can then break it down by a summary for each meeting or the actual individual online comments.This is the report Unsworth was talking about: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wildfuture/Can you please provide a link directly to the comments? I can't seem to find them.
You can go in and actually read all 450 online comments. I'm sure some of your names are in there.
If you read that then the Senator is lying. There are lots of comments for increasing enforcement staffing, the Senator said that's not the case, oops it is.
I know of several of the commenters and i know what's shown is what they submitted. No editing or anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just a few of my thoughts and observations:
1) The senate committee seemed to have a bias from the get-go.
2) If the comments provided to the committee were in the same format as I saw online it is almost impossible to see any trend or to summarize. Some kind of a topic by topic breakdown would help tremendously. I don't think either Unsworth or the committee chair were "wrong" about the public comments, but there's way too much there.
3) Like the comments, issues the DFW is dealing with are remarkably varied and complicated.
4) None of this is good for fish, wildlife, the DFW, users, us, etc. This shows how broken the state system is. Something needs to be fixed here if were going to have any positive outcome.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 11, 2017, 10:19:23 AM
Post by: bigtex on February 11, 2017, 10:21:14 AM
Think Unsworth was referring to the wild futures comments and the Senators are referring to the comments submitted for the bills regarding price increases?I think so too
Post by: Special T on February 11, 2017, 10:40:41 AM
It's clear to most sportsmen that the wdfw is out of touch. I for one wish there was more of a dressing down by the state senators. He came asking for more $ and didn't make a good case, but showed he is out of touch.
Post by: bobcat on February 11, 2017, 10:44:57 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on February 11, 2017, 11:01:29 AM
@bullkllr #4 is the truth. We do have a broken system and to try and gloss over that fact perpetuates the problem.
It's clear to most sportsmen that the wdfw is out of touch. I for one wish there was more of a dressing down by the state senators. He came asking for more $ and didn't make a good case, but showed he is out of touch.
And, they'll end up giving it to him anyway, most likely.
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 11:18:02 AM
I guess only time will tell, but I do believe more people (including legislators) are beginning to understand just how broken, corrupt and dysfunctional WDFW management has become@bullkllr #4 is the truth. We do have a broken system and to try and gloss over that fact perpetuates the problem.
It's clear to most sportsmen that the wdfw is out of touch. I for one wish there was more of a dressing down by the state senators. He came asking for more $ and didn't make a good case, but showed he is out of touch.
And, they'll end up giving it to him anyway, most likely.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 11, 2017, 11:36:08 AM
Post by: gee_unit360 on February 11, 2017, 11:56:35 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on February 11, 2017, 02:51:01 PM
Post by: goldenhtr on February 11, 2017, 03:08:16 PM
Take a look at Director Unsworth's presentation to the Senate Ways and Means Committee:
www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true)
You will want to start the video at 01:01:00, then make sure and watch it through 01:11:45
It's priceless
Not finding the video with this link??
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 03:15:00 PM
Wow, thanks for posting! What a bs artist unsworth is, where do we go from here?? Not real positive about our future of fish n game in this state with him in charge.
At some point I keep hoping the commission will wake up and do the right thing, but nothing yet. I really don't know where we go from here.
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 03:20:13 PM
When I watched the video it sounded like the Chairman said that there wasn't broad support for the fee increases, not that there wasn't support for more enforcement officers. At the meeting I attended and at the GMAC meeting there wasn't much support for the fee increases. Yes people want increased hunting and fishing opportunities, but most don't seem to believe that WDFW would manage to make any real increases even with more money coming in, they don't do a good job now, why should we think more money would change things. People seem to be saying that they are not willing to spend more money only to see less hunting and fishing available or affordable to them.Having spent my career in WDFW enforcement, I of-course support full funding of enforcement, and also believe we need more officers..........BUT, until someone makes some major changes to the enforcement administration and corrects the problems I can't support a license increase.
Until they show us how they will use the money wisely, and will stop the corruption, I am opposed to any increase at all.
Post by: ucwarden on February 11, 2017, 03:22:27 PM
Take a look at Director Unsworth's presentation to the Senate Ways and Means Committee:
www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true)
You will want to start the video at 01:01:00, then make sure and watch it through 01:11:45
It's priceless
Not finding the video with this link??
I just checked http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true) and it popped right up
Post by: JDHasty on February 11, 2017, 07:35:49 PM
Make absolutely no mistake about it, I walked WDFW through what this order would accomplish and I pointed out that when I was a kid in western Washington more kids were started out hunting on the release sites than any other opportunity.
Holy smokes, this isn't rocket surgery. These people are so damnably out of touch with the end users that they may as well be deaf and blind. It really is that bad when you get to the decision making echelon of that Agency.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 11, 2017, 08:30:12 PM
:yeah:, great point!When I watched the video it sounded like the Chairman said that there wasn't broad support for the fee increases, not that there wasn't support for more enforcement officers. At the meeting I attended and at the GMAC meeting there wasn't much support for the fee increases. Yes people want increased hunting and fishing opportunities, but most don't seem to believe that WDFW would manage to make any real increases even with more money coming in, they don't do a good job now, why should we think more money would change things. People seem to be saying that they are not willing to spend more money only to see less hunting and fishing available or affordable to them.Having spent my career in WDFW enforcement, I of-course support full funding of enforcement, and also believe we need more officers..........BUT, until someone makes some major changes to the enforcement administration and corrects the problems and can't support a license increase.
Until they show us how they will use the money wisely, and will stop the corruption, I am opposed to any increase at all.
Post by: goldenhtr on February 11, 2017, 08:34:13 PM
Take a look at Director Unsworth's presentation to the Senate Ways and Means Committee:
www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true)
You will want to start the video at 01:01:00, then make sure and watch it through 01:11:45
It's priceless
Not finding the video with this link??
I just checked http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true (http://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true) and it popped right up
Got it thanks. adblocker was blocking it:)
All I can say is WOW:(
Post by: olyguy79 on February 11, 2017, 11:51:19 PM
It's essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the legislature raises fees then sportsman will complain about paying more.
If they don't raise fees then WDFW will cut back on services (hatcheries, lands upkeep, enforcement, etc.) and sportsman will complain about the cut in services.
Either way sportsman complain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Mudman on February 11, 2017, 11:56:17 PM
Having spent my career working in the legislative branch I'd be shocked if there's not a fee increase, I don't think it'll be to extent of the current proposal however.Are you serious! Sounds like the out of touch crap a career Gov legislator would say! Let me guess give more and more $ and Gov will make us all happy. What a crock... Why don't they get their sheet together. Mic drop. Don't peddle that crap here please. Step back 50 years and check prices and budgets and tell me who did better? :bash:
It's essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the legislature raises fees then sportsman will complain about paying more.
If they don't raise fees then WDFW will cut back on services (hatcheries, lands upkeep, enforcement, etc.) and sportsman will complain about the cut in services.
Either way sportsman complain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ucwarden on February 12, 2017, 05:43:28 AM
Mudman: I appreciate your support and comments, but let's please keep it civil and respect other's opinions, even if you totally disagree. I don't believe olyguy was saying that is what he wants to happen, but rather what his experience tells him will happen, and I agree. Whenever WDFW has had budget problems in the past, they have always cut the things the public wants the most; hatcheries and enforcement. It's just the way they do business. Cut what people want the most, and you will get support for a budget increase. Cut biologists, administrators, and officer managers, and nobody will even notice. That's the way it works. Doesn't make it right, but it's fact.Having spent my career working in the legislative branch I'd be shocked if there's not a fee increase, I don't think it'll be to extent of the current proposal however.Are you serious! Sounds like the out of touch crap a career Gov legislator would say! Let me guess give more and more $ and Gov will make us all happy. What a crock... Why don't they get their sheet together. Mic drop. Don't peddle that crap here please. Step back 50 years and check prices and budgets and tell me who did better? :bash:
It's essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the legislature raises fees then sportsman will complain about paying more.
If they don't raise fees then WDFW will cut back on services (hatcheries, lands upkeep, enforcement, etc.) and sportsman will complain about the cut in services.
Either way sportsman complain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
However, this time, if I were a legislator I would hold the line, and block the budget increase. I would make it clear that until WDFW gets it's act together and addresses the corruption and mismanagement, no more money. As a sportsman I am willing to suffer the consequences, for the greater good in this case.
Post by: ucwarden on February 12, 2017, 08:56:44 AM
Well, the dressing down Unsworth received from the senator, is a prime example of what happens when you ignore the ugly truth for too long.
When Unsworth came to us from Idaho, I was excited to finally get a fair and neutral party in command. I naively thought he would take some time to figure out what is truth and what is fiction, then would set about clearing out the bad apples, and getting the program back in shape. Instead he seems to have been taken in by those who are the very problems he should have been addressing, and has become part of the problem instead of the solution.
It is very discouraging for WDFW employees, as well as us sportsmen that neither the director nor the commission seems to care about the employees of WDFW, or the sportsmen who (largely) pay their way.
I applaud the senator for calling Unsworth out, as well as Senator Pearson (and others) for trying to get WDFW back on track, but I haven't seen any real progress yet.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 12, 2017, 09:04:50 AM
Exactly what happens and did happen for my entire career. Makes absolutely no sense if proper management is what the goal is. Give you just one example and believe me there are many. The Wildlife Area Program should be a shining example of management and a huge source of positive PR for WDFW. However wildlife areas and their budgets, outside of some corp funding, have stayed pretty much custodial from when I went to work in the early 70's. WDFW is right near the top as far as total acres of owned or managed lands in the country. Once recognized as a leader in that respect. However the leadership stops at actual management for the most part. Understaffed and short on funds, the managers are simply custodians with the exception of some who make lemonade out of lemons.
My sense has always been if you are proud of the vast amount of opportunity that wildlife areas have, then manage them properly. Otherwise the agency just gets negative press. If you are going to enforce game laws, then staff at a level that at least makes some sense. Don't expect one agent to cover an area that should be handled by multiple staff. Hatchery program was the largest in the world, but ideologies changed and hatcheries did as well. You manage what you have properly before you take on additional responsibilities, irregardless of what the legislature heaps on you. Oh and what was mentioned above in one response, you don't do things to reduce you client base, you try to add to it. When I took on management of the non existant turkey program back in the mid 80's you would not believe the naysayers and npon native haters....we did that before, people have left hunting and doing other things, they're invasive and will eat all our slugs.. bla, bla, bla. Any excuse not to try to do something different and provide opportunity. Just like the movie Field of Dreams, if you build it he will come", actually works with additional recreational opportunity. WDFW vendors in Colville and surrounding areas now sell more turkey tags in the northeast than deer tags. Been that ways for years now. Proof is in the results.
Unfortunately WDFW is politicized and full of "lets not rock the boat types". The new Director, like many before him, again serves as a role model for doing nothing. Many in the upper WDFW management levels are comfortable in their weekly meetings where they pretty much play devil's advocate for most of their careers and feel biologically empowered. Many of those headquarter and regional office jobs are quite frankly, luxuries and generally unnecessary. However little power dynasties have been built over decades to justify higher managerial pay grades. Sad, but true. If they say it's not true they're drinking their own kool aid.
I ran a program with 21 staff properly equipped with only one Olympia office staff position....myself. Futhermore I got down and dirty in the field doing eveything field staff did planting shrubs, driving tractors, trapping turkeys...on and on every chance I got. Every position was an active field position to get work done. The program unlike most was not top loaded with more chiefs than indians. Simple and effective. We accomplished more in the short 10 years despite roadblocks than most programs will ever accomplish. Although most landowners and the sportsmen we worked with didn't like the agency per se, they pretty much trusted us and were behind our efforts. Why, because we were there for them and our word meant something. Unfortunately reorganization ended the program as powers to be just before and after I retired felt biologist don't get their hands dirty. That is for techs or ag. assisitants, of which there were none. Makes sense huh....lol. Biologists should be thinkers and meeting attendants. What a bunch of crap.
Restructure and get rid of many mid management and higher level jobs in headquarters, and regional offices along with some bogus field positions that do nothing and then fund management staffing levels that actually need it. In summary it's doubtful things will ever change or evolve back to what should be. That pretty much comes from the top and for years not only the Director, but the Commissiion as well, has failed miserably. Rant over.........
Post by: lokidog on February 12, 2017, 09:23:41 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 12, 2017, 09:30:38 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 12, 2017, 09:36:47 AM
:tup::yeah: Thanks for the insight wacenturion.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 12, 2017, 09:38:36 AM
I'm a senator>>> "I can't afford to go hunting anymore"
Way to budget...and you're managing our money??!!
Post by: nwwanderer on February 12, 2017, 09:40:08 AM
Even with the likes of Inslee, a rare individual director would turn things around. Will it ever happen? Does that person even exist? Hard questions. The resources are in surprisingly good condition given the situation.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on February 12, 2017, 09:45:47 AM
Post by: ucwarden on February 12, 2017, 10:20:56 AM
Post by: Mudman on February 12, 2017, 10:44:09 AM
Post by: Special T on February 12, 2017, 11:57:26 AM
Having spent my career working in the legislative branch I'd be shocked if there's not a fee increase, I don't think it'll be to extent of the current proposal however.Thier actions of punishing sportsmen is very telling. It is just another example of how they overlook the very people who make thier jobs possible. There are examples out there for sucess if the WDFW actually cared.
It's essentially a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
If the legislature raises fees then sportsman will complain about paying more.
If they don't raise fees then WDFW will cut back on services (hatcheries, lands upkeep, enforcement, etc.) and sportsman will complain about the cut in services.
Either way sportsman complain.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Another example of sucess that got cut short was all the mowing done at cherry Valley and stillwater due to the private donations of equiptment, fuel,and time. @happygilmore had a large hand in that with his dog training club.
Post by: ucwarden on February 12, 2017, 01:44:58 PM
My bad, I will try to be civil. frustrated. Thanks for your input, Its an informative rant and I am glad you guys see it the way you do, gives me some hope. Every day Idaho or Wyoming look better. This isn't just wdfw its pervasive in so many gov. agencies in this state and country. One of you wardens should apply for Director heh???No problem Mudman, and I fully understand the frustration (I have been working hard to force change, in WDFW, for over four years now). The beauty of this forum is to be able to share our thoughts, facts, and opinions with other interested parties, through the generosity of the website host. We get to hear different opinions from all kinds of different perspectives (although I doubt too many liberals are on here). I just don't like it when comments get personal between members, but I too have been guilty of such.
Thanks for your opinion, and for having the time and interest to keep apprised of this issue.
Post by: Odell on February 12, 2017, 02:04:12 PM
Post by: ucwarden on February 12, 2017, 02:37:49 PM
The ending of that was beautiful. That was a very pointed dismissal.I was a thing of beauty, wasn't it? What goes around comes around....eventually.
Post by: northwesthunter84 on February 12, 2017, 03:27:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 12, 2017, 06:29:54 PM
Post by: 7mmstalker on February 12, 2017, 06:48:32 PM
Post by: bigtex on February 12, 2017, 07:25:17 PM
What pisses me off about this guy is he goes over reason after to reason to increase fees, lies about having public support, and never once mentions ways they can reduce wasteful spending or salary freezes.........and I'm quite sure there are plenty WE could find.There's wasteful spending literally every form of government. At the last WDFW Commission meeting the commission was briefed on recent cost savings by being more efficient, the presentation is here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/feb1017_08_presentation.pdf
But regarding salary freezes. This is something that can only be done by the governor or legislature, not independent govt agencies, and it'll effect all agencies. The feds work the same way. You can't have WDFW in a salary freeze for example but all state other agencies not.
Post by: Man Tracker on February 12, 2017, 07:31:57 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on February 12, 2017, 11:00:21 PM
UC, to answer your question, I really doubt anything will ever change. It's government and evolves as such. The only hope would be to have someone come in that actually knows enough about resource management or has the managerial skills to trust people who do, to make tough decisions.
The last opportunity WDFW to do that in my opinion was Bern Shanks. Although not what some would consider a natural resource expert, he has excellent management skills. He was good at letting people make decisions that made a difference. He could also recognize BS. He bucked the system and pissed off a few Regional Managers and upper management types. He eventually got rewarded with backstabbing and exit.
I used to believe in the commission, however I don't anymore. They have shown they are inept. Example...when the Alaska hire ( Koenings) who was director for ten years was forced out, they did a nationwide search for a new director. Best they could do was Anderson, the previous director's assistant? I had a hard time understanding how that was the best they could do considering he would probably not even meet the qualifications for a wildlife director's job anywhere in the county due to his lack of educational requirements and experience. I'm not knocking him personally mind you, just the process.
The previous director before him was another commission blunder. Research biologists, as he was in the fish arena, tend to be held in high esteem in many agencies, but I can tell you they don't have the real world experience or interaction with the public that they need to serve. All the commission saw was the word SALMON, the flavor of the day. Enough said. Decade wasted in my opinion.
Considering we have and always probably will have a democrat for a governor, I certainly don't trust that option either. The only possible hope would be to have an elected position like DNR, with a statewide elected official. Might get lucky, but then again, the I-5 population corridor might drop a tree hugger in our laps. Not to sure I'm comfortable with that either.
I've been retired just over 14 years now. I loved my job, but hated the politics and some of the egos I had to tolerate. I also miss the old Dept. of Game, and what it was when I started. Even with our shortcomings way back when, we were better. We for the most part appreciated the folks that paid our salaries and made our careers possible. I know I did. Times have certainly changed. Yesterday's sportsman who I met day in and day out, tend to be defined in today's agency, in two words, Joe Sixpack. They have forgotten just who they serve. Not all mind you, but policy and those who influence it, have. Sad........ :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on February 12, 2017, 11:25:29 PM
What pisses me off about this guy is he goes over reason after to reason to increase fees, lies about having public support, and never once mentions ways they can reduce wasteful spending or salary freezes.........and I'm quite sure there are plenty WE could find.There's wasteful spending literally every form of government. At the last WDFW Commission meeting the commission was briefed on recent cost savings by being more efficient, the presentation is here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/feb1017_08_presentation.pdf
:chuckle: You'll forgive me for laughing, but after watching that display of deceit, I'm not going to hold much regard for any WDFW prepared presentation on cost savings.
........carry on. :chuckle:
Post by: Gringo31 on February 13, 2017, 08:53:04 AM
There is WAY too much admin and WAY too much spent on "programs" and I'll pick wolves as a category that I disagree with.
There is too much confusion in the leadership dept. Are decisions made on science or public opinion? IF it's public opinion, why have educated biologists? They lean too far towards the backyard bird watchers, gardeners and who knows what else and forget about the bread and butter fish and game. :twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 13, 2017, 07:14:43 PM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:24 AM
What pisses me off about this guy is he goes over reason after to reason to increase fees, lies about having public support, and never once mentions ways they can reduce wasteful spending or salary freezes.........and I'm quite sure there are plenty WE could find.There's wasteful spending literally every form of government. At the last WDFW Commission meeting the commission was briefed on recent cost savings by being more efficient, the presentation is here: http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2017/02/feb1017_08_presentation.pdf
But regarding salary freezes. This is something that can only be done by the governor or legislature, not independent govt agencies, and it'll effect all agencies. The feds work the same way. You can't have WDFW in a salary freeze for example but all state other agencies not.
@bigtex how is selling more 2 pole endorsements being more efficient? The other stuff doesn't have any costs associated with it and doesn't actually tell if they are saving money. I love lean, TPS, Six Sigma, etc - I've attended classes, read the books, got the certs, and have incorporated it at our company. That being said, I absolutely hate it when people say they are "going lean" and not actually doing so.
Personally I think this, and the other examples of "lean" I've seen come from the WA government are garbage. They don't carry real data unless it's overwhelmingly positive, and that data is usually irrelevant that they are trying to spin to sound legitimate.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 11, 2017, 11:44:27 AM
WHEN they want to reduce spending, they go after the emotional topics. Game Wardens, teachers, police, fire fighters etc.....
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 11, 2017, 11:47:37 AM
I don't think that the average WDFW employee is bad, but I do think that the executives have a responsibility to create a culture of continuous improvement and they are failing at that. It has to be something that is pushed from the top and Unsworth is clearly not up to the challenge.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on May 11, 2017, 04:13:28 PM
Well said wacenturion, and I couldn't agree more. Now what do we do about fixing it, or is that even possible?When I left WDFW 10 years ago, there were 600-some employees statewide and 900-some in Olympia. I doubt much has changed. Reversing those ratios would be a great start.
Post by: bigtex on May 11, 2017, 04:37:39 PM
I totally agree. When they push for money, it's always "What, you don't support your game wardens?"That's every government though. For WDFW its officers and WDFW lands. For cities it's the police department, fire department, and parks. They try to go after the programs that the citizens support most.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 11, 2017, 06:55:52 PM
So that makes it right? NO......FIX ITI totally agree. When they push for money, it's always "What, you don't support your game wardens?"That's every government though. For WDFW its officers and WDFW lands. For cities it's the police department, fire department, and parks. They try to go after the programs that the citizens support most.
Post by: bigtex on May 11, 2017, 07:09:21 PM
Pretty sure I didn't say it's right...So that makes it right? NO......FIX ITI totally agree. When they push for money, it's always "What, you don't support your game wardens?"That's every government though. For WDFW its officers and WDFW lands. For cities it's the police department, fire department, and parks. They try to go after the programs that the citizens support most.
Post by: Man Tracker on May 11, 2017, 08:56:51 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 12, 2017, 03:34:15 AM
Sounds like the next (likely)DFW Enforcement is undergoing a background investigation. A retired administrator from Alaska. Bigtex, you have any intel?I don't. Considering game wardens in Alaska (and Oregon) are a part of the state patrol they are strongly encouraged to engage in non-fish/wildlife enforcement activities. So if this Alaska hire is true there may not be changes in terms of enforcement activity by WDFW Officers.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on May 12, 2017, 10:20:23 AM
Every trooper I've ever ran across in Alaska has been very impressive. I believe they are the best in the business. It's always been incredible to me how good of a job they do over so much land and being short handed. :tup:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on May 12, 2017, 10:28:31 AM
And I didn't mean it personally. We all need to help with that by not accepting it from those who think they are our rulers instead of employees .....Pretty sure I didn't say it's right...So that makes it right? NO......FIX ITI totally agree. When they push for money, it's always "What, you don't support your game wardens?"That's every government though. For WDFW its officers and WDFW lands. For cities it's the police department, fire department, and parks. They try to go after the programs that the citizens support most.
Post by: Goshawk on June 18, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on June 19, 2017, 12:45:19 AM
Post by: spoonman on June 19, 2017, 06:42:31 AM
Post by: Goshawk on June 19, 2017, 07:36:00 AM
How could you end up with anything else?
So how is it that a man in his position can really only speak the word "umm"?!?! His ability to make a intelligent statement and or argument is next to impossible. My 15 year old daughter would slaughter him in a debate, it would be like having a battle of wits with a unarmed person!!!
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 19, 2017, 07:43:15 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on June 19, 2017, 08:10:47 AM
Not positive, but i think the Wildlife commission picks the director and the Governor picks the Wildlife commissioners. Anyone? Beuler? Beuler?:yeah: You are correct sir.
Post by: wolfbait on June 20, 2017, 07:02:37 AM
I just now went back and actually watched the video presentation. Wow, how embarassing to say the least.
UC, to answer your question, I really doubt anything will ever change. It's government and evolves as such. The only hope would be to have someone come in that actually knows enough about resource management or has the managerial skills to trust people who do, to make tough decisions.
The last opportunity WDFW to do that in my opinion was Bern Shanks. Although not what some would consider a natural resource expert, he has excellent management skills. He was good at letting people make decisions that made a difference. He could also recognize BS. He bucked the system and pissed off a few Regional Managers and upper management types. He eventually got rewarded with backstabbing and exit.
I used to believe in the commission, however I don't anymore. They have shown they are inept. Example...when the Alaska hire ( Koenings) who was director for ten years was forced out, they did a nationwide search for a new director. Best they could do was Anderson, the previous director's assistant? I had a hard time understanding how that was the best they could do considering he would probably not even meet the qualifications for a wildlife director's job anywhere in the county due to his lack of educational requirements and experience. I'm not knocking him personally mind you, just the process.
The previous director before him was another commission blunder. Research biologists, as he was in the fish arena, tend to be held in high esteem in many agencies, but I can tell you they don't have the real world experience or interaction with the public that they need to serve. All the commission saw was the word SALMON, the flavor of the day. Enough said. Decade wasted in my opinion.
Considering we have and always probably will have a democrat for a governor, I certainly don't trust that option either. The only possible hope would be to have an elected position like DNR, with a statewide elected official. Might get lucky, but then again, the I-5 population corridor might drop a tree hugger in our laps. Not to sure I'm comfortable with that either.
I've been retired just over 14 years now. I loved my job, but hated the politics and some of the egos I had to tolerate. I also miss the old Dept. of Game, and what it was when I started. Even with our shortcomings way back when, we were better. We for the most part appreciated the folks that paid our salaries and made our careers possible. I know I did. Times have certainly changed. Yesterday's sportsman who I met day in and day out, tend to be defined in today's agency, in two words, Joe Sixpack. They have forgotten just who they serve. Not all mind you, but policy and those who influence it, have. Sad........ :twocents:
"I also miss the old Dept. of Game, and what it was when I started. Even with our shortcomings way back when, we were better. We for the most part appreciated the folks that paid our salaries and made our careers possible. I know I did. Times have certainly changed. Yesterday's sportsman who I met day in and day out, tend to be defined in today's agency, in two words, Joe Sixpack. They have forgotten just who they serve. Not all mind you, but policy and those who influence it, have. Sad........ :twocents:"
:yeah: You are not alone with these thoughts.
I remember the old Dept. go Game feeding deer through bad winters, managing ungulates by keeping predators in check along with a deer season that reflected the deer herds, how many different deer seasons are there now? And how many Doe permits will they issue this year after predicting the weather?
What we have today is a department hell bent on destroying what took years to build though fake science etc... :twocents: $$$$$$$$$$$
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 20, 2017, 07:09:22 AM
Post by: timberfaller on June 20, 2017, 08:00:01 AM
Liberals listen to Eco-terrorist, tree huggers and bunny huggers and give generously to Democrats, and the actions coming out of Olympia surprises you??
Staying home and NOT voting has consequences! :beatdeadhorse:
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2017, 08:40:10 AM
Our WDFW has a mandate from the Governor through the Wildlife Commission to "green-up" the department and pay more attention to the environmentalist groups and wildlife watchers than to the people who pay the bills, us. You can see it in the appointments to the commission, the appointment of the director by the commission, the emphasis on the outrageous wolf plan. It's a self-destructive path that will intensify each year. The Governor cares not where the money comes from. When hunters and fishers take their dollars elsewhere, it'll justify funding the department more from the general fund, leaving us behind.Since sports men came to the rescue of the WDFW to prevent the parks merger and this is the thanks we get, where do we go from here? All I see is a slow downward spiral.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on June 20, 2017, 08:44:05 AM
It was a merger proposal that outside of the governor's office (Gregoire) had very little support in the legislature. Not saying that sportsman didn't have an impact, but it wasnt going anywhere anyways.Our WDFW has a mandate from the Governor through the Wildlife Commission to "green-up" the department and pay more attention to the environmentalist groups and wildlife watchers than to the people who pay the bills, us. You can see it in the appointments to the commission, the appointment of the director by the commission, the emphasis on the outrageous wolf plan. It's a self-destructive path that will intensify each year. The Governor cares not where the money comes from. When hunters and fishers take their dollars elsewhere, it'll justify funding the department more from the general fund, leaving us behind.Since sports men came to the rescue of the WDFW to prevent the parks merger and this is the thanks we get, where do we go from here? All I see is a slow downward spiral.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2017, 08:49:54 AM
This may be true, but I remember the WDFW making a plea to sportsmen, and then thanking them for a great show of support. I know that many state reps were flooded with calls and letters.It was a merger proposal that outside of the governor's office (Gregoire) had very little support in the legislature. Not saying that sportsman didn't have an impact, but it wasnt going anywhere anyways.Our WDFW has a mandate from the Governor through the Wildlife Commission to "green-up" the department and pay more attention to the environmentalist groups and wildlife watchers than to the people who pay the bills, us. You can see it in the appointments to the commission, the appointment of the director by the commission, the emphasis on the outrageous wolf plan. It's a self-destructive path that will intensify each year. The Governor cares not where the money comes from. When hunters and fishers take their dollars elsewhere, it'll justify funding the department more from the general fund, leaving us behind.Since sports men came to the rescue of the WDFW to prevent the parks merger and this is the thanks we get, where do we go from here? All I see is a slow downward spiral.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 20, 2017, 09:58:09 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 10:04:22 AM
Hey I recognize the first name on that list of council members...
Yep. I suspect I was chosen as the token hunter. You know..."diversity".
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2017, 10:48:02 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on June 20, 2017, 11:04:42 AM
I think it's sad they don't recognize the Pitman Roberts funds as hunter contributions. They seem to think the extra tax sportsmen imposed upon themselves is their own slush fund.
To the Department's credit, they do consider most of PR dollars as devoted solely to Hunting. There is a portion of the PR funding that can go to other wildlife projects (wolves, for example).
I was told that "only" approximately 30% of PR funds come from hunting related expenditures. The rest comes from the shooting community expenditures. WDFW is concerned that PR funds will be lower next year since fewer people feel compelled to buy AR's and such now that Trump is in office.
Post by: Special T on June 20, 2017, 11:06:24 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk