Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 06:47:11 PM
Yakima County is down to 1 of 3 positions filled.
The Tri-Cities has 2 of 4 positions filled.
----------------------------
Myers said the attack highlights one of the fundamental tensions in wild life management: Wild animals aren’t easily managed.
“It’s a difficult task, if not impossible,” he said.
That means one of WDFW’s primary responsibilities is to educate people about how to coexist with wildlife.
“We all have a vested stake in this,” he said. “We’re all part of this ecosystem.”
With more people heading into the side and back countries, especially on the western side of the state, conflicts between humans and wild animals will only increase.
“There are things that we can control and things we can’t,” Myers said.
King County, the state’s most populous county, unsurprisingly has the highest number of conflicts between humans and wild animals. Yet Myers said he has only three enforcement officers covering the entirety of inland King County.
“That’s insane,” he said.
A shrinking budget has left full-time positions unfilled and remaining agency staff stretched thin, Myers said. For WDFW’s enforcement officers, who handle everything from interstate poaching rings to littering, that means mistakes can happen.
WDFW’s 2007-09 biennial operating capital budget was $348.5 million. By the 2009-11 biennium, the budget had dropped 6.1 percent to $326.8 million. The trend continued into 2015, forcing agency-wide layoffs and program reductions.
Unless new revenue sources are found or approved by the Legislature, agency staff predict that during the 2019-21 biennium the department will have an estimated “shortfall north of $30 million.” In 2017, WDFW asked the Legislature to increase hunting and fishing fees. Lawmakers did not pass the bill, leaving the department with a $25 million deficit.
That’s taken a toll on the work that Myers can do. On Saturday, as he rushed to respond to the deadly cougar attack, he pulled officers from three marine enforcement detachments. Those enforcement officers weren’t trained to work with big land animals.
Although everything went OK, Myers said it could have gone differently.
“I’m running on a skeleton crew,” he said.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/may/24/deadly-cougar-attack-on-mountain-bikers-highlights/
Post by: buglebrush on May 28, 2018, 06:49:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2018, 06:53:29 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 28, 2018, 06:55:06 PM
Animals are impossible to manage? Uhhh... No WDFW is simply stupid. Other states do just fine. I call BS
:yeah:
Tired of hearing we're short staffed, have budget shortfalls, etc. after getting only apparent lip service about wildlife management concerns.
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 06:56:09 PM
Animals are impossible to manage? Uhhh... No WDFW is simply stupid. Other states do just fine. I call BSOnly one state to my knowledge has a team of game wardens who are assigned as human-wildlife conflict investigators. Essentially, these are the wardens that are called when wildlife attack humans. The reason for this is the high number of wildlife attacks in the state. The state??
Montana
Post by: olyguy79 on May 28, 2018, 06:58:34 PM
Glad you mentioned this BT.Animals are impossible to manage? Uhhh... No WDFW is simply stupid. Other states do just fine. I call BSOnly one state to my knowledge has a team of game wardens who are assigned as human-wildlife conflict investigators. Essentially, these are the wardens that are called when wildlife attack humans. The reason for this is the high number of wildlife attacks in the state. The state??
Montana
Montana has a very high wildlife-human attack incident count. I had the privilege of meeting the warden in charge of the unit. The lack of the press in Montana means that a lot of non-fatal attacks are not reported to the public.
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2018, 06:59:22 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 07:00:36 PM
.....and soon Grizz are coming to WA through the relocation program, we're getting Montana's problem bears.Courtesy of Ryan Zinke
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 07:02:56 PM
For reference, 10 years ago there were 7 WDFW Officers and 1 Sergeant to cover inland King County (everything except the saltwater). Now there are 3 officers and 1 Sergeant.What most people don't realize is that through the bad budget years of the "Great Recession" all WDFW programs had their funding cut, except the enforcement program. In fact several new positions were added to the enforcement program. This current funding shortage and the one the agency is facing in the coming years will have the biggest impact to the enforcement program since the funding cuts of the late 90s when wardens were laid off.
Yakima County is down to 1 of 3 positions filled.
The Tri-Cities has 2 of 4 positions filled.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 28, 2018, 07:25:13 PM
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 07:27:17 PM
WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators.I don't think anybody is saying that's the case..
Post by: olyguy79 on May 28, 2018, 07:28:16 PM
:yeah:WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators.I don't think anybody is saying that's the case..
The article is more about lack of resources to respond to wildlife incidents/poaching.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 28, 2018, 07:36:32 PM
Seems like it was implied given the story was about cougar attacks, then included discussion of officer shortages and budget woes...but I only skimmed the article. :dunno::yeah:WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators.I don't think anybody is saying that's the case..
The article is more about lack of resources to respond to wildlife incidents/poaching.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on May 28, 2018, 08:06:36 PM
Post by: Bob33 on May 28, 2018, 08:07:05 PM
Post by: jasnt on May 28, 2018, 08:31:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 28, 2018, 08:36:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 08:38:30 PM
Do they really think people are that stupid? Using a tragedy like this to try to get support for more money and more officers. Like if there were more officers this wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes:I don't think anybody is saying that?
Post by: olyguy79 on May 28, 2018, 08:49:43 PM
Nobody is saying more officers would've prevented this attack. Nobody is saying more officers would control the wildlife issues we see in urban areas. The WDFW Captain simply said he has three guys to cover the most populated county in the state and he had to pull officers from other areas.
Post by: jasnt on May 28, 2018, 08:52:23 PM
it seemed that way to me :dunno:Do they really think people are that stupid? Using a tragedy like this to try to get support for more money and more officers. Like if there were more officers this wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes:I don't think anybody is saying that?
One thing is for sure, more officers isn’t going to fix the departments issues! The department needs rebuilt, wildlife laws rewritten, voter initiative management removed and a new game plan written for sustainable recreational management.
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2018, 10:42:28 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 28, 2018, 11:03:47 PM
Better cougar hunting rules could have prevented this from even happening in the first place, then those "3" people could have just rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.How can you say that? So if we have more aggressive cougar hunting then there will be absolutely no cougar attacks ever again?
There will always be that cougar/bear/etc. that's goes off and attacks someone. Nothing is an absolute. We can diminish the chance obviously, but there will always be the potential.
Post by: dan11011 on May 28, 2018, 11:16:27 PM
I think people are reading too far into this.
Nobody is saying more officers would've prevented this attack. Nobody is saying more officers would control the wildlife issues we see in urban areas. The WDFW Captain simply said he has three guys to cover the most populated county in the state and he had to pull officers from other areas.
:yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 04:14:28 AM
WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators.I don't think anybody is saying that's the case..
That is the logical implication of the thread title.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 04:17:50 AM
Better cougar hunting rules could have prevented this from even happening in the first place, then those "3" people could have just rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.How can you say that? So if we have more aggressive cougar hunting then there will be absolutely no cougar attacks ever again?
There will always be that cougar/bear/etc. that's goes off and attacks someone. Nothing is an absolute. We can diminish the chance obviously, but there will always be the potential.
Seems reasonable to conclude it could have a greater impact than having more WDFW assets respond after the fact.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 29, 2018, 05:15:11 AM
Post by: 2MANY on May 29, 2018, 07:36:37 AM
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 07:47:48 AM
Do they really think people are that stupid? Using a tragedy like this to try to get support for more money and more officers. Like if there were more officers this wouldn't have happened. :rolleyes:That’s exactly how I take the article as well. I’m quite certain the department was short on guys on a lot of other incidents but chose this one to write an article about being short on funds.
Post by: jmscon on May 29, 2018, 08:10:04 AM
"Yet Myers said he has only three enforcement officers covering the entirety of inland King County." With Seattle the fastest growing city in the country. Probably takes a good hour minimum to respond to a call with traffic.
Took me an hour to go 15 mile inside Seattle city limits the other day with the traffic we have! If a officer had to get pulled off a boat to respond to something in Enumclaw it’s going to take hours and hours to respond!
Post by: Bob33 on May 29, 2018, 08:34:40 AM
How do you propose that WDFW increase cougar harvest when the governor has vetoed a proposed increase from current levels?Better cougar hunting rules could have prevented this from even happening in the first place, then those "3" people could have just rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.How can you say that? So if we have more aggressive cougar hunting then there will be absolutely no cougar attacks ever again?
There will always be that cougar/bear/etc. that's goes off and attacks someone. Nothing is an absolute. We can diminish the chance obviously, but there will always be the potential.
Seems reasonable to conclude it could have a greater impact than having more WDFW assets respond after the fact.
Post by: Dick in the Dirt on May 29, 2018, 08:39:00 AM
Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.No truer words spoken.Stick to the job their hired to do. Here in the valley they spend more time with other law enforcement than their job. With their power of no search warrants and probable cause they can stop anybody. Works well for other agencies.
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 08:45:24 AM
Post by: konradcountry on May 29, 2018, 09:27:12 AM
How do you propose that WDFW increase cougar harvest when the governor has vetoed a proposed increase from current levels?
In some areas the limits aren't reached but my guess is that they are far from urban areas.
Inslee basically vetoed on a rule violation that the environmentalist groups came up with. Everyone note that HSUS and Wolf Haven were involved. So there is a chance it could still be increased, especially after this attack. But I think most the areas targeted for the increase were on the east side.
Post by: James on May 29, 2018, 09:35:46 AM
I have been hunting in WA for 22 years, and have encountered a warden once while hunting.
The only time I see them fishing is derby style fisheries like halibut openers.
We need to do a lot more than just fill those empty positions if we truly care about our wildlife resources.
Post by: Humptulips on May 29, 2018, 10:13:49 AM
Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.No truer words spoken.Stick to the job their hired to do. Here in the valley they spend more time with other law enforcement than their job. With their power of no search warrants and probable cause they can stop anybody. Works well for other agencies.
Good point here.
Agents are getting called to help local and State agencies. It should work in the other direction. I ponder what if nobody from WDFW had showed up. Sheriff could have went out with a hound man and accomplished the same thing. Hound guys, now there is something short on supply. Wonder why?
Post by: jasnt on May 29, 2018, 10:19:18 AM
:yeah:Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.No truer words spoken.Stick to the job their hired to do. Here in the valley they spend more time with other law enforcement than their job. With their power of no search warrants and probable cause they can stop anybody. Works well for other agencies.
Good point here.
Agents are getting called to help local and State agencies. It should work in the other direction. I ponder what if nobody from WDFW had showed up. Sheriff could have went out with a hound man and accomplished the same thing. Hound guys, now there is something short on supply. Wonder why?
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 10:24:22 AM
There extended search/stop authority only pertains to wildlife violations.Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.No truer words spoken.Stick to the job their hired to do. Here in the valley they spend more time with other law enforcement than their job. With their power of no search warrants and probable cause they can stop anybody. Works well for other agencies.
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 10:28:22 AM
It does work in the other direction. As an example, most WDFW search warrants for example involve the SO or WSP.Good point here.Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.No truer words spoken.Stick to the job their hired to do. Here in the valley they spend more time with other law enforcement than their job. With their power of no search warrants and probable cause they can stop anybody. Works well for other agencies.
Agents are getting called to help local and State agencies. It should work in the other direction. I ponder what if nobody from WDFW had showed up. Sheriff could have went out with a hound man and accomplished the same thing. Hound guys, now there is something short on supply. Wonder why?
It also doesn't help that most other LE agencies in WA are also short staffed. As an example, most agencies no longer respond to "cold crimes" anymore.
FYI, the "agent" title went away 30 years ago.
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 10:52:13 AM
Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 10:53:52 AM
So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 10:56:39 AM
:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 11:04:48 AM
Uuhh, did I say it was okay, no, you're a real wizard for reading into thinking I support illegal activity :rolleyes:. I just said couldn't they find different personnel to solely perform that task and keep those officers outside.:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 11:07:36 AM
That's part of a game wardens job! It's not like they're doing health inspector jobs making sure people got their food workers card. I suppose you'd also say wardens shouldn't be checking in on taxidermists either?Uuhh, did I say it was okay, no, you're a real wizard for reading into thinking I support illegal activity :rolleyes:. I just said couldn't they find different personnel to solely perform that task and keep those officers outside.:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 11:10:11 AM
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 11:10:27 AM
Nope, not saying that either...That's part of a game wardens job! It's not like they're doing health inspector jobs making sure people got their food workers card. I suppose you'd also say wardens shouldn't be checking in on taxidermists either?Uuhh, did I say it was okay, no, you're a real wizard for reading into thinking I support illegal activity :rolleyes:. I just said couldn't they find different personnel to solely perform that task and keep those officers outside.:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 11:12:30 AM
:yeah:That's part of a game wardens job! It's not like they're doing health inspector jobs making sure people got their food workers card. I suppose you'd also say wardens shouldn't be checking in on taxidermists either?Uuhh, did I say it was okay, no, you're a real wizard for reading into thinking I support illegal activity :rolleyes:. I just said couldn't they find different personnel to solely perform that task and keep those officers outside.:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Fish receipts are a vital part of the marine division's job. In fact, it's in the fish and wildlife enforcement code.
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 11:14:00 AM
So explain to me what is the difference between an officer going into a restaurant to make sure the fish were obtained legally, and going into a taxidermist to make sure the fish/wildlife were obtained legally?Nope, not saying that either...That's part of a game wardens job! It's not like they're doing health inspector jobs making sure people got their food workers card. I suppose you'd also say wardens shouldn't be checking in on taxidermists either?Uuhh, did I say it was okay, no, you're a real wizard for reading into thinking I support illegal activity :rolleyes:. I just said couldn't they find different personnel to solely perform that task and keep those officers outside.:oMight be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw officer came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
So I guess you're saying it's okay if the restaurant got the fish from illegal areas it's okay because it's in the restaurant now?
What the WDFW Officer did is what game wardens do in every state. Game wardens protect fish/wildlife from essentially the birth of the animal (and really even before then with habitat laws) to the total destruction of the animal (eaten by us).
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 11:19:20 AM
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 11:40:17 AM
WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 11:50:06 AM
I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 12:05:17 PM
I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 12:28:38 PM
"This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
As someone who works on budgets in the legislature I can tell you that if the legislature keeps to their promise of continuing to decrease the amount of general fund money, and not continue the one-time disbursement of general fund money they did in 2018, WDFW will be neutered starting in July 2019. Quite simply, a increase in license fees isn't going to fix it either. A 25M cut is huge. WDFW lands will no longer be maintained how they are, WDFW Officer slots will continue to go unfilled, some WDFW Officers may be laid off. It'll essentially be a new WDFW. If you're upset with how things are running now, it'll be worse starting July 2019.
Post by: 2MANY on May 29, 2018, 12:30:33 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 29, 2018, 12:34:07 PM
I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
Number of licenses flux 1-2% or cash generated because those are two completely separate things?
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 12:45:42 PM
"This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
As someone who works on budgets in the legislature I can tell you that if the legislature keeps to their promise of continuing to decrease the amount of general fund money, and not continue the one-time disbursement of general fund money they did in 2018, WDFW will be neutered starting in July 2019. Quite simply, a increase in license fees isn't going to fix it either. A 25M cut is huge. WDFW lands will no longer be maintained how they are, WDFW Officer slots will continue to go unfilled, some WDFW Officers may be laid off. It'll essentially be a new WDFW. If you're upset with how things are running now, it'll be worse starting July 2019.
Just to clarify I didn't say it would fix their whole budget. I said they are losing when they should be gaining more, let's just be clear on what is actually being said! ;)
To address your points, they are losing more significantly by ignoring their customers because I for one will not be calling my legislators asking them to give WDFW more money to waste on wolves. If anything I'm going to be telling my legislators to cut their funding until they start taking care of their customers! I'm willing to bet there are other customers who feel the same way. :twocents:
For the record, I have been very vocal with my legislators through the years!
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 12:49:12 PM
"This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
As someone who works on budgets in the legislature I can tell you that if the legislature keeps to their promise of continuing to decrease the amount of general fund money, and not continue the one-time disbursement of general fund money they did in 2018, WDFW will be neutered starting in July 2019. Quite simply, a increase in license fees isn't going to fix it either. A 25M cut is huge. WDFW lands will no longer be maintained how they are, WDFW Officer slots will continue to go unfilled, some WDFW Officers may be laid off. It'll essentially be a new WDFW. If you're upset with how things are running now, it'll be worse starting July 2019.
Just to clarify I didn't say it would fix their whole budget. I said they are losing when they should be gaining more, let's just be clear on what is actually being said! ;)
To address your points, they are losing more significantly by ignoring their customers because I for one will not be calling my legislators asking them to give WDFW more money to waste on wolves. If anything I'm going to be telling my legislators to cut their funding until they start taking care of their customers! I'm willing to bet there are other customers who feel the same way. :twocents:
For the record, I have been very vocal with my legislators through the years!
You know it's these types of frustrations that led to Trump getting elected. I can only hope things get so bad in WA that the west side people eventually react!
Post by: bobcat on May 29, 2018, 12:53:03 PM
Post by: boneaddict on May 29, 2018, 12:53:37 PM
Post by: Humptulips on May 29, 2018, 01:06:47 PM
There are a great many things the Department does that while maybe important are something more properly a responsibility and benefit to the general public. The most glaring example being wolf recovery but includes all endangered species, boater safety, seafood enforcement checks like in the restaurant mentioned, hydraulic permits, etc.
Yea, I realize a lot of stuff like endangered species is covered by grants but most of that is through PR and DJ grants which come mostly from Sportsmen.
So often we get it thrown in our face about funding from the General fund and the anti groups are quick to say they are paying because of the General fund portion of the budget.
I would like to know where the money goes and if I am not actually paying my way happy to endorse an increase.
I think most everyone balks at paying for things they do not benefit from.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 29, 2018, 01:10:44 PM
Post by: Southpole on May 29, 2018, 01:25:10 PM
If the WDFW budget is in such bad shape, how can they afford to spend 1.6 million dollars on a person to mediate the Wolf Advisory Group meetings? That is a totally unessential position that they could easily do without.Amongst other positions/staff they may or may not need
http://fiscal.wa.gov/Salaries click on fish and wildlife
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 01:27:49 PM
Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information. What they can do is release information to the associated groups via a PDR just like any other citizen.
For officers, the issue now is simply having money to hire people. The lack of applicants is nationwide and not a WDFW only issue.
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 01:31:51 PM
I would like to see a budget produced by WDFW that separated out things that do not directly benefit Sportsmen.Boating safety is paid by State Parks, who is actually paid by the US Coast Guard. The same entity that pays your local PD/SO to be on the water is paying WDFW. WDFW gets the equivalent funding of one officer to do boating safety.
There are a great many things the Department does that while maybe important are something more properly a responsibility and benefit to the general public. The most glaring example being wolf recovery but includes all endangered species, boater safety, seafood enforcement checks like in the restaurant mentioned, hydraulic permits, etc.
Yea, I realize a lot of stuff like endangered species is covered by grants but most of that is through PR and DJ grants which come mostly from Sportsmen.
So often we get it thrown in our face about funding from the General fund and the anti groups are quick to say they are paying because of the General fund portion of the budget.
I would like to know where the money goes and if I am not actually paying my way happy to endorse an increase.
I think most everyone balks at paying for things they do not benefit from.
For enforcement of recreational hunting/fishing laws it is paid for by the wildlife fund (licenses).
The enforcement of the other things (commercial fishing, market checks, etc.) is paid for by the general fund as it's seen as an issue that effects all citizens.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 29, 2018, 01:35:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 01:39:10 PM
Disseminating facts is not taking sides. Saying "animal rights people are wackos." is not the same as saying "Hounding and baiting allow the department to effectively manage predator numbers and allows hunters to be selective as to which animals they harvest. The repercussions of eliminating those tools is as of yet an unknown."They can't!
The only way they can get the facts out there is if a separate entity does it. WDFW couldn't say what you just said. A separate entity (say the Houndsmen Assoc.) could come out and say they got all this info from WDFW and here's what it says.
Agencies can't take sides, disseminate facts, whatever you want to call it on an initiative. The reason being is the legislature doesn't want the state to be the influence on the voters.
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 01:41:37 PM
BT is correct. Agencies are basically hogtied on initiatives. The most recent I can think of was the privatization of liquor. The Liquor Board couldn't come out and say hey the sale to minor rate will increase if this happens (which has proven to be true) instead the opposing groups to the initiative had to ask for stats from the LCB and then release it.Disseminating facts is not taking sides. Saying "animal rights people are wackos." is not the same as saying "Hounding and baiting allow the department to effectively manage predator numbers and allows hunters to be selective as to which animals they harvest. The repercussions of eliminating those tools is as of yet an unknown."They can't!
The only way they can get the facts out there is if a separate entity does it. WDFW couldn't say what you just said. A separate entity (say the Houndsmen Assoc.) could come out and say they got all this info from WDFW and here's what it says.
Agencies can't take sides, disseminate facts, whatever you want to call it on an initiative. The reason being is the legislature doesn't want the state to be the influence on the voters.
Post by: Widgeondeke on May 29, 2018, 01:48:07 PM
"This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
If the entire enforcement division only operates on $25,000,000. Where the heck is the other $300+ million going? :yike:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 29, 2018, 01:49:49 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 01:50:43 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/If the entire enforcement division only operates on $25,000,000. Where the heck is the other $300+ million going? :yike:"This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 02:10:44 PM
If the WDFW budget is in such bad shape, how can they afford to spend 1.6 million dollars on a person to mediate the Wolf Advisory Group meetings? That is a totally unessential position that they could easily do without.
I agree, that was not a legislatively mandated position, it was a management decision and a perfect example why they are in trouble with their budget. One of the reasons I won't be asking my legislators to fund WDFW, if anything to cut their funding until WDFW takes care of their customers.
Its going to take a whole bunch more incidents and you can bet they will find a way to blame it on hunting :rolleyes::yeah:
I would like to see a budget produced by WDFW that separated out things that do not directly benefit Sportsmen.:yeah: Agreed, I don't mind paying non-resident fees to other states because I get what i'm paying for!
There are a great many things the Department does that while maybe important are something more properly a responsibility and benefit to the general public. The most glaring example being wolf recovery but includes all endangered species, boater safety, seafood enforcement checks like in the restaurant mentioned, hydraulic permits, etc.
Yea, I realize a lot of stuff like endangered species is covered by grants but most of that is through PR and DJ grants which come mostly from Sportsmen.
So often we get it thrown in our face about funding from the General fund and the anti groups are quick to say they are paying because of the General fund portion of the budget.
I would like to know where the money goes and if I am not actually paying my way happy to endorse an increase.
I think most everyone balks at paying for things they do not benefit from.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 29, 2018, 03:59:25 PM
Precisely...it won't just be a decline of hunters buying apps and licenses (because other states offer a better experience)...it will be hunters shrugging when they ask for legislative support...or even more problematic...when sportsmen get fed up and say cut their budget! With 1.6 mil for a facilitator, they obviously have too much money."This should have increased revenue substantially"I'm going to get heat for this but oh well. I hear all the time that people are going to quit hunting/fishing, or they already have in a way to "show it to the man." Well I'm here to tell you guys it's not working. Over the past 10 years the number of WDFW licenses sold flux up/down 1-2% a year, that's it. Some years they go up, typically corresponding with large salmon fisheries such as the pink salmon run in the Puget Sound.WDFW doesn't need more officers to more effectively manage predators. Officers are only going to help AFTER someone has been chewed on.:yeah: Right there, that is already a problem and it's getting worse. Hunters and fishers are fed up with WDFW management. If I was the director and commission I would seriously be looking at what to do to please my customers! "IN A NUTSHELL" that is one of the most important issues that should be addressed!
Frankly, if they don't start focusing on issues important to hunters and anglers they are going to find out what real budget problems look like. :twocents:
The main issue isn't that the numbers of licenses sold is crashing significantly. The issue is WDFW isn't getting the general fund support they used to, and an issue we all know is that money doesn't go as far as it once did. A hundred bucks in 2018 doesn't go as far as it did in 2010, 2005, or 1995. The cost of operations are going up, but the funding isn't, that's the overall problem.
I'm not giving you heat :tup: but I do want to reply to your points. The commission created numerous additional avenues of revenue with all the additional permit applications. This should have increased revenue substantially, instead as you say it has only fluctuated 1%-2%, this tells me they are losing customers in other areas or the increase would be greater. :twocents:
If you aren't keeping up with your budget you are losing! :twocents:
I completely disagree. A bunch (yes I know it's probably thousands) of $7 application fees isn't going to fix a multi-million dollar problem. WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
As someone who works on budgets in the legislature I can tell you that if the legislature keeps to their promise of continuing to decrease the amount of general fund money, and not continue the one-time disbursement of general fund money they did in 2018, WDFW will be neutered starting in July 2019. Quite simply, a increase in license fees isn't going to fix it either. A 25M cut is huge. WDFW lands will no longer be maintained how they are, WDFW Officer slots will continue to go unfilled, some WDFW Officers may be laid off. It'll essentially be a new WDFW. If you're upset with how things are running now, it'll be worse starting July 2019.
Just to clarify I didn't say it would fix their whole budget. I said they are losing when they should be gaining more, let's just be clear on what is actually being said! ;)
To address your points, they are losing more significantly by ignoring their customers because I for one will not be calling my legislators asking them to give WDFW more money to waste on wolves. If anything I'm going to be telling my legislators to cut their funding until they start taking care of their customers! I'm willing to bet there are other customers who feel the same way. :twocents:
For the record, I have been very vocal with my legislators through the years!
Post by: Special T on May 29, 2018, 04:50:27 PM
One of the largest complaints about WDFW Enforcement is the expanded duties they've taken on over the years. Some have been forced upon them by the legislature, others WDFW have often taken in order to get more money (such as boating enforcement). However, this isn't only a WDFW thing. You can look at every state's wildlife enforcement program and see activities/disciplines they work in and think to yourself "why is that under the purview of the game warden?" A couple examples:I was going to bring up the unfunded mandate part. Is there a break down as to how much time is spent for these unfunded mandates?
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
This is a very specific beef we should all have. If sportsmen are pay half the bill how much time is being spent on other stuff
?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: ipkus on May 29, 2018, 04:52:39 PM
So is bigtex on one point. WDFW thinks you all are stupid enough to keep paying (and they want you to pay even more) for less. Less deer, less elk, less salmon, less. They are betting essentially the Department's financial future on it. I don't know exactly where it's at, but there is a breaking point coming. And unless the mindset within upper management at WDFW changes, it is going to suck for all of us. WDFW employees, hunters, wolf lovers, fisherpeople, etc.
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 05:03:12 PM
One of the largest complaints about WDFW Enforcement is the expanded duties they've taken on over the years. Some have been forced upon them by the legislature, others WDFW have often taken in order to get more money (such as boating enforcement). However, this isn't only a WDFW thing. You can look at every state's wildlife enforcement program and see activities/disciplines they work in and think to yourself "why is that under the purview of the game warden?" A couple examples:I was going to bring up the unfunded mandate part. Is there a break down as to how much time is spent for these unfunded mandates?
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
This is a very specific beef we should all have. If sportsmen are pay half the bill how much time is being spent on other stuff
?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Humptulips made a good point about this too, budget items need separated so we know what is being paid by sports folks. Most of the mandated endangered species stuff should be funded by general fund.
I would like to see a budget produced by WDFW that separated out things that do not directly benefit Sportsmen.
There are a great many things the Department does that while maybe important are something more properly a responsibility and benefit to the general public. The most glaring example being wolf recovery but includes all endangered species, boater safety, seafood enforcement checks like in the restaurant mentioned, hydraulic permits, etc.
Yea, I realize a lot of stuff like endangered species is covered by grants but most of that is through PR and DJ grants which come mostly from Sportsmen.
So often we get it thrown in our face about funding from the General fund and the anti groups are quick to say they are paying because of the General fund portion of the budget.
I would like to know where the money goes and if I am not actually paying my way happy to endorse an increase.
I think most everyone balks at paying for things they do not benefit from.
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 05:04:48 PM
And the answer to H's question was providedHumptulips made a good point about this too, budget items need separated so we know what is being paid by sports folks. Most of the mandated endangered species stuff should be funded by general fund.One of the largest complaints about WDFW Enforcement is the expanded duties they've taken on over the years. Some have been forced upon them by the legislature, others WDFW have often taken in order to get more money (such as boating enforcement). However, this isn't only a WDFW thing. You can look at every state's wildlife enforcement program and see activities/disciplines they work in and think to yourself "why is that under the purview of the game warden?" A couple examples:I was going to bring up the unfunded mandate part. Is there a break down as to how much time is spent for these unfunded mandates?
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
This is a very specific beef we should all have. If sportsmen are pay half the bill how much time is being spent on other stuff
?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 05:10:55 PM
No and you would have to go through decades of bills to see what was enacted and if funding was provided.One of the largest complaints about WDFW Enforcement is the expanded duties they've taken on over the years. Some have been forced upon them by the legislature, others WDFW have often taken in order to get more money (such as boating enforcement). However, this isn't only a WDFW thing. You can look at every state's wildlife enforcement program and see activities/disciplines they work in and think to yourself "why is that under the purview of the game warden?" A couple examples:I was going to bring up the unfunded mandate part. Is there a break down as to how much time is spent for these unfunded mandates?
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
This is a very specific beef we should all have. If sportsmen are pay half the bill how much time is being spent on other stuff
Like I already said, the wildlife funds recreational hunting and fishing enforcement. The general fund funds the enforcement of other things.
You could get 10 people in a room, provide them with the activities/seasons WDFW monitors and each one of those 10 people will come up with 10 different priorities. We had someone earlier saying WDFW shouldn't be doing restaurant/market inspections, I disagree (and apparently so does every state) because that's how you can still find illegally taken fish.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on May 29, 2018, 05:33:37 PM
2 weekends ago was a prime example, 3 educated idiots, and 2 game wardens checking folks at the boat launch at Westport.... really??
I am tired of paying more and getting less....
Any hound hunter, wolf killer, trapper, or bear baiter will get a pass from me....
Post by: olyguy79 on May 29, 2018, 05:37:04 PM
Having worked for the state for 20 years I gotta laugh. The wastage of $$$$ in state government is gross, I see it daily.... it’s funny, the more ground that gets locked up, the more officers we need??? Haha.....Because poaching doesn't happen behind gates? :o Heck, a lot of hunters are now hunting behind gates.
WDFW still has about 40 less officers now then they did when the merger happened in 1994.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on May 29, 2018, 05:45:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 05:52:36 PM
And there’s more since the gates went up??? Haha wow.....Um no.
Post by: buglebrush on May 29, 2018, 05:53:48 PM
Post by: TriggerMike on May 29, 2018, 05:54:20 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2018, 05:55:24 PM
And the answer to H's question was providedHumptulips made a good point about this too, budget items need separated so we know what is being paid by sports folks. Most of the mandated endangered species stuff should be funded by general fund.One of the largest complaints about WDFW Enforcement is the expanded duties they've taken on over the years. Some have been forced upon them by the legislature, others WDFW have often taken in order to get more money (such as boating enforcement). However, this isn't only a WDFW thing. You can look at every state's wildlife enforcement program and see activities/disciplines they work in and think to yourself "why is that under the purview of the game warden?" A couple examples:I was going to bring up the unfunded mandate part. Is there a break down as to how much time is spent for these unfunded mandates?
-In the New England states Search & Rescue is the responsibility of the game wardens. Doesn't matter if it's a hunter who is lost or little Tommy. Once SAR is activated it's the game warden's show
-In Florida game wardens are responsible for enforcing speed laws in Florida panther zones during night hours. Basically there is a daytime speed limit and a night time speed limit in panther areas. It's the wardens enforcing it.
-In California wardens are responsible for enforcing oil spills. A new task is that wardens are now the ones issuing permits for marijuana grows.
-In the Midwest many states have their game wardens also take on the state park ranger role. Essentially their first task is the park, when they can they are able to go throughout the state and work off-park fish/wildlife work
One common thing nationwide though is unfunded mandates. The legislature of the state comes up with new laws, wants the game wardens to enforce it, but doesn't give them any new money to do it. Essentially its the old "do more with less" concept.
This is a very specific beef we should all have. If sportsmen are pay half the bill how much time is being spent on other stuff
?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I had missed that, thanks for the info. I would like to see an accounting in WDFW to see if sportsman's dollars are actually going where they are supposed to go. I wonder if PR funds are being used for wolves? USFWS used them in the past to plant wolves.
Post by: acnewman55 on May 29, 2018, 09:11:59 PM
The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.
Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 09:27:36 PM
Cougar attacks are just a convenient event to create a media buzz about WDFW’s “budget shortfall”.Well considering the legislature wants to give WDFW less tax $, I doubt it. A license fee increase however..
The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.
Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 29, 2018, 09:38:44 PM
And this is where they come begging at the doorstep of sportsmen and their various organizations...seeking support for fee increases. And when folks look at the poor job the Department is doing on issues important to us, while spending millions on a wolf facilitator...well, that's when they will find out what budget problems look like.Cougar attacks are just a convenient event to create a media buzz about WDFW’s “budget shortfall”.Well considering the legislature wants to give WDFW less tax $, I doubt it. A license fee increase however..
The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.
Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 29, 2018, 09:44:32 PM
:yeah: Cougars....so, the agency setting quotas too low, ending seasons too early (should be year round), limiting to a single tag, charging for a tag, not allowing trapping, etc for an animal taking lots of the game animals would want to charge even more for those game animals while it makes the reduction of cougars even more difficult. Not a good trade.And this is where they come begging at the doorstep of sportsmen and their various organizations...seeking support for fee increases. And when folks look at the poor job the Department is doing on issues important to us, while spending millions on a wolf facilitator...well, that's when they will find out what budget problems look like.Cougar attacks are just a convenient event to create a media buzz about WDFW’s “budget shortfall”.Well considering the legislature wants to give WDFW less tax $, I doubt it. A license fee increase however..
The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.
Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.
Post by: Shannon on May 29, 2018, 09:45:05 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 10:11:21 PM
So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically. I agree. Sounds like accounting work.
Post by: Bob33 on May 29, 2018, 10:14:49 PM
My guess is that accountants make as much or more than many enforcement officers.So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically. I agree. Sounds like accounting work.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 10:29:47 PM
WDFW's looking at a 25 million dollar cut starting July 2019. A 25 million dollar cut would be the equivalent of nearly dissolving the entire wildlife or enforcement divisions within WDFW. WDFW would need about 115,000 new people to purchase the new "fish Washington", big game combo w/ small game, turkey, and migratory bird to cover that deficit. Obviously that's not going to happen either.
That's counting chickens before they hatch. That highlights the disconnect between WDFW's priorities and it's customers' desires. They've sliced and diced the opportunities to maximize revenue, while customers have been experiencing reduced ROI.
To me, it's simple economics.
Complaining about lack of funding isn't going to convince people that they are getting a good return on their outdoor entertainment dollar. Only a good return will do that.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 10:45:34 PM
Bearpaw is exactly right with almost all of his points.
So is bigtex on one point. WDFW thinks you all are stupid enough to keep paying (and they want you to pay even more) for less. Less deer, less elk, less salmon, less. They are betting essentially the Department's financial future on it. I don't know exactly where it's at, but there is a breaking point coming. And unless the mindset within upper management at WDFW changes, it is going to suck for all of us. WDFW employees, hunters, wolf lovers, fisherpeople, etc.
:yeah:
Over the years, I have drastically cut back on license and app expenditures as prices increased and opportunities decreased. I am certain I am not alone. WDFW and its proponents can deny it all they want. But now they are complaining about budget shortfalls.
:dunno:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 10:53:20 PM
My guess is that accountants make as much or more than many enforcement officers.So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically. I agree. Sounds like accounting work.
I am not saying you need a CPA to look at paperwork. Point is that it sounds like entry level paper shuffling that commissioned enforcement officers need not be doing, and they would probably prefer not doing. It probably could be automated and/or at least streamlined to better utilize scarce resources.
They, local LE, farm out red light and school zone traffic enforcement, and it is cash cow. Why not simple paperwork inspection?
Post by: bigtex on May 29, 2018, 11:10:53 PM
You do realize a commissioned officer reviews the redlight/school zone footage before a ticket is sent out right? There actually is a citing officer for all those offenses.My guess is that accountants make as much or more than many enforcement officers.So a Fish & Wildlife Officer is investigating a restaurant by looking at their fish receipts. You do realize that's a vital part of their job right?Might be nice if WDFW didn't have their officers doing things pertaining to fish & wildlife issues and not writing parking or other no related WDFW issues.About 3 or 4 months ago a friend and I were having lunch at the Tokyo House in Arlington. About half way into our lunch a wdfw agent came in to look through the Tokyo House's fish receipts. Couldn't the state find someone else to do that, why does it have to be a guy that should be out in the woods or on the water.
I think the point is that menial admin tasks can be performed without a badge and a gun, perhaps more economically. I agree. Sounds like accounting work.
I am not saying you need a CPA to look at paperwork. Point is that it sounds like entry level paper shuffling that commissioned enforcement officers need not be doing, and they would probably prefer not doing. It probably could be automated and/or at least streamlined to better utilize scarce resources.
They, local LE, farm out red light and school zone traffic enforcement, and it is cash cow. Why not simple paperwork inspection?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 29, 2018, 11:13:15 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 29, 2018, 11:47:28 PM
Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.
Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".
Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".
"Can't take sides" my a$$!
Post by: bigtex on May 30, 2018, 06:59:41 AM
It's state law.Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.
Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".
Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".
"Can't take sides" my a$$!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: buglebrush on May 30, 2018, 07:25:21 AM
It's state law.Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.
Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".
Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".
"Can't take sides" my a$$!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Then they are breaking state law. Taking no action is still an action, and therefore taking a side. Look, it's obvious from your posts bigtex that you work, or worked for wdfw. Your bias is pretty obvious in all your comments. :twocents:
Post by: Southpole on May 30, 2018, 08:24:50 AM
Cougar attacks are just a convenient event to create a media buzz about WDFW’s “budget shortfall”.What’s that ol’ saying, “don’t let a good crisis go to waste.”
The implication is raise taxes or watch your children get gobbled up by cougars.
Typical government incompetency and the only answer is to raise taxes.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 30, 2018, 08:32:17 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2018, 08:46:31 AM
It's state law.Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.
Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".
Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".
"Can't take sides" my a$$!
Lmfao :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on May 30, 2018, 09:15:54 AM
Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 30, 2018, 09:43:52 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 30, 2018, 09:50:06 AM
Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!
Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!
:yeah: Part of my reasoning of hunting more out of state is on principle that I hate spending my hard earned money to a department that doesn't have our interest in mind. Of course, the better hunting/seasons/options helps but my principles also play a part in my decision.
Post by: jasnt on May 30, 2018, 10:21:59 AM
Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!:yeah:
Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!
Post by: rainshadow1 on May 30, 2018, 11:30:20 AM
We could fund all the officers we need with the money being wasted on wolves! :bash:
:yeah: And then some... :yeah:
Post by: olyguy79 on May 30, 2018, 04:15:44 PM
There's a big difference between the department saying "we oppose this legislation", and "regulated and controlled hounding and baiting allows for more predictable management of predator populations. Eliminating hounds and baiting could affect the department's ability to control those populations." It's not taking a side. It's presenting facts from the department tasked with wildlife management. Their silence and the lack of any input from the appropriate biologists in 1996 was pushed by the left side of the isle and the governor's office and definitely had an influence on the outcome of the vote. I agree with Buglebrush that their silence was a tacit support of the anti-hound and baiting argument/propaganda.I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. State agencies cannot proactively take sides, disseminate facts, provide information on initiatives. What they can do is provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info.
The reasoning is the legislature doesn't want state agencies interfering with elections. WDFW coming out and saying "regulated and controlled hounding and baiting allows for more predictable management of predator populations. Eliminating hounds and baiting could affect the department's ability to control those populations" would appear to many that it's WDFW's stance that they should vote for keeping hound hunting.
Don't like it? Tell the legislature to change state laws allowing agencies to be more proactive on initiatives just like they can on legislative bills.
Post by: olyguy79 on May 30, 2018, 04:18:40 PM
:o :oThen they are breaking state law. Taking no action is still an action, and therefore taking a side. Look, it's obvious from your posts bigtex that you work, or worked for wdfw. Your bias is pretty obvious in all your comments. :twocents:It's state law.Had they released some facts on hounding and baiting back in 1996, we'd be in a whole different place right now. They didn't have to take sides. But they shirked their duty regarding information about managing wildlife. As far as the number of officers is concerned, if the administration improved the reputation of enforcement and turned over top management levels, maybe more talent would show up to play. Who wants to work for a department that's unprofessional and has been shown to not support their wildlife officers in the field? I sure wouldn't.For your initiative statement. Agencies can't take sides on an initiative, nor can they just freely release information.
Of course not, it's much easier to sit back and watch the biased media spew misinformation that perpetuates the departments underlying objectives, then claim "we can't take sides".
Then show which "side" they are taking by flushing $millions down the wolf lovers hole, hiring "the wolf whisperer".
"Can't take sides" my a$$!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
His bias? No he's stating facts that you don't agree with so suddenly he has a bias. He's told several individuals via PM who he actually works for, and sorry it's not WDFW.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2018, 08:54:05 AM
Essentially I think WDFW is operating as the governor and vocal anti-hunting groups desire! They can claim they are managing wildlife to fit the politics of Washington and that is probably true. But in all their wisdom they missed the boat, they have focused on pleasing the wrong people, they have forgotten to take care of their paying customers! If you forget to take care of your paying customers your income will suffer! It's all very simple if you understand people and business!:yeah:
Right now my opinion of WDFW is at its lowest point ever and there is no way I want to give them any extra money until I see positive changes first because you can't trust that they will do what is best for their customers. I would just as soon their budget is cut so that they realize they need to take care of their customers! I'm willing (even anxious) to pay more when I see improvements first!
:yeah:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2018, 08:59:46 AM
To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
Post by: Special T on May 31, 2018, 09:21:43 AM
It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."The kind of insider knowledge that BigTex and Ol y give are important. That knowlege is the only way to fight it from the inside by learning how to play the beurocratic game. We need more folks like these 2 to be active is sportsmen orgs as a guiding force. We spin our wheels a lot trying to do the right thing because she don't know the process and language.
To date, their is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
I really like the focus on the ROI but unfortunately the WDFW does not see sportsmen as a major financial contributor as it relates to policy issues. They are quite content to not make free riders aware of the $ sportsmen spend.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on May 31, 2018, 10:18:17 AM
Post by: KFhunter on May 31, 2018, 04:31:30 PM
Better cougar hunting rules could have prevented this from even happening in the first place, then those "3" people could have just rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.How can you say that? So if we have more aggressive cougar hunting then there will be absolutely no cougar attacks ever again?
There will always be that cougar/bear/etc. that's goes off and attacks someone. Nothing is an absolute. We can diminish the chance obviously, but there will always be the potential.
The operative word in my quote is "could", more aggressive hunting rules "could" have prevented this, obviously there are no absolutes but I'm a firm believer in generational learning on animals being hunted.
Like in Alaska, wolves hide in deep cover when a helicopter flies over head in areas being hunted by helicopters, the cougars if they were chased with hounds they'd eventually avoid people and dogs like a plague - thus the two dudes "could" have rode their bikes in blissful ignorance.
Possibly
Post by: Gringo31 on June 01, 2018, 06:48:05 AM
We all have "beefs" with what is and what should be. It's fair to say "we" don't feel like the natural resources in our state are being managed the right way. It's fair to say that many of the "wildlife police" are treated poorly or put in an environment that isn't a fun place to work dealing with the BS they do internally.
What drive me crazy the most is that OUR WDFW SHOULD be the knowledge base that is above all. They SHOULD have the expertise to manage correctly. Why with all of that knowledge can major decisions come to a vote of an ignorant public?
There is a disconnect that is probably just growing. This (I believe) will only lead to massive poaching and little regard for the law. Too much ground to cover, too little of fines and too costly for the proper permits.
I don't see a fix coming. It is what it is.....and everyone suffers as leadership is the real issue. .02
Post by: bigtex on June 01, 2018, 05:58:36 PM
What drive me crazy the most is that OUR WDFW SHOULD be the knowledge base that is above all. They SHOULD have the expertise to manage correctly. Why with all of that knowledge can major decisions come to a vote of an ignorant public?
While I completely agree with you I think you (and others) need to look at the issues as a whole. If a law was passed that said voters can't file initiatives for wildlife laws (first off it would be ruled as unconstitutional as it's clear in the WA Constitution that voters can file an initiative or referendum for any law) what's to stop the legislature from passing a law that says voters can't file an initiative that would repeal/change a tax law? Firearms law? Etc.
While I would love it if voters couldn't decide our wildlife laws, I'm also happy that voters can repeal (or try to at least) tax increases, etc.
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 06:17:53 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on June 01, 2018, 07:35:34 PM
It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests. I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law. I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed". They agreed.
To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado. Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government. The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels. The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs. That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 07:40:55 PM
Post by: jmscon on June 01, 2018, 07:47:08 PM
It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests. I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law. I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed". They agreed.
To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado. Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government. The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels. The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs. That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish
What do you think the best way is to fix those problems with WDFW? Changing the state government seems next to impossible but are there things that could be fixed inside of the dept?
Post by: KFhunter on June 01, 2018, 07:52:00 PM
Post by: Bango skank on June 01, 2018, 08:17:12 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on June 01, 2018, 08:19:40 PM
It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests. I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law. I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed". They agreed.
To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado. Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government. The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels. The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs. That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish
People are AFRAID to stand up to their bosses. In the government, you're most likely not going to suffer any consequences, maybe a letter in the square file and that's it. One thing I whole heartedly disagree with is, ANY government agencies should not be allowed to be unionized, period. Federal, State or County.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on June 01, 2018, 09:30:36 PM
It would be nice for WDFW apologists to explain the process to get WDFW to "provide information to you/groups as a PDR and then you as a citizen/as a group can disseminate that info."I can assure you the Game Division employees are not cozy with non or anti hunting interests. I interviewed with them in 1999 for a bear/cougar/furbearer position, they were intensely interested in how to communicate to the general public the impacts of the initiative (it was the "hypothetical" scenario) without running afoul of the state law. I asked a lot of questions, and my final response was "you're screwed". They agreed.
To date, there is an appearance that WDFW is predominantly cozy with non or anti hunting interests. Don't like it? It is up to WDFW to change that perception in their formerly paying customers.
It may be hard to believe but the technical game management people in WDFW as as good as, and as pro hunting as, their counterparts in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Colorado. Where they differ is smaller game populations, more demand, and worst of all, they work for Washington State Government. The problems originate with the Governor and Legislature, trickle down to the Director (of all agencies), and is a toxin that infiltrates all of the policy and management levels. The technical people can't take a stand because their chain of command doesn't have their backs. That is the primary difference I found between working for WDFW and Wyoming Game and Fish
People are AFRAID to stand up to their bosses. In the government, you're most likely not going to suffer any consequences, maybe a letter in the square file and that's it. One thing I whole heartedly disagree with is, ANY government agencies should not be allowed to be unionized, period. Federal, State or County.
I appreciate that dilemma. When the only "side" that gets taken is either silence or need more money, that's a pretty tough row to hoe. I don't fault the pro technical people.
Post by: wolfbait on June 01, 2018, 09:58:52 PM
.....and soon Grizz are coming to WA through the relocation program, we're getting Montana's problem bears.
Pretty sure the USFWS and WDF&wolves have already planted the big bears in WA, what they mostly want is everything on paper, so they can shut down large areas of public lands for G.bear recovery.
Some years back wasn't there a collared grizzly bear down around Wenatchee that people were watching?
Looking at WDF&wolves, their wolf plan and their inactions in confirming livestock predation or confirming BPs, wolf packs, there really isn't enough makeup you could slap on WDFW to make them look pretty.
Once WDFW started partnering up with the likes of DoW, CNW, and changed from Fish and Game to department of Wildlife etc., everything started heading south, bear and cougar hunting via hounds went, then the wolves "migrated" in and look at us today. WDF&wolves are predicting when they will delist the wolves.
Just like the illegal wolf introduction into ID, MT, and Wyoming, WDFW are showing their true colors, they are just as corrupt as the USFWS was. How do we hold WDFW accountable?