Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 06:35:33 PM
WDFW has also convened a citizen panel to look at how to cover that $30,000,000. The panel has determined that two-thirds of the funding should come from general fund sources (taxes). They are looking at diverting/raising state sales, lodging, B&O taxes. The remaining third will come from license holders. There are two proposals 1) across the board 12-15% license fee increase or 2) An additional $10 fee charged to each customer (essentially $10 per WILD ID number)
Bottom line is, taxes/fees will go up.
Post by: Bango skank on July 16, 2018, 06:41:45 PM
Post by: 92xj on July 16, 2018, 07:07:32 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 07:10:48 PM
Maybe we could create a hiking license, horseback riding license, camping license, bird watching license, hippy license, bridge jumping in public water license, pay gates into public lands... Oh, no wait, hunters and fisherfolks will cover it all for everyone.That's the reason why the panel wants two-thirds coming from taxes. WDFWs prior proposals have been nearly 100% from hunters/anglers. If the legislature goes with WDFWs proposal the general citizenry will be flipping a bigger bill for WDFW.
Post by: Alpine Mojo on July 16, 2018, 07:12:20 PM
Maybe we could create a hiking license, horseback riding license, camping license, bird watching license, hippy license, bridge jumping in public water license, pay gates into public lands... Oh, no wait, hunters and fisherfolks will cover it all for everyone.
Sounds good to me. We have all been subject to user fees for years via licensing of hunting and fishing. Let those liberal Seattle pussies pay to play for their hiking and tree hugging "experience".
Post by: Mark Brenckle on July 16, 2018, 07:19:00 PM
Post by: Mudman on July 16, 2018, 07:25:18 PM
Maybe we could create a hiking license, horseback riding license, camping license, bird watching license, hippy license, bridge jumping in public water license, pay gates into public lands... Oh, no wait, hunters and fisherfolks will cover it all for everyone.Oh don't you fret. It will happen soon. If they can think it they will try an tax it. I bet they come up with some new impact fee or registration fee or processing fee to fund it. From us of course.
Post by: bobcat on July 16, 2018, 07:28:01 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 16, 2018, 07:30:19 PM
Maybe we could create a hiking license, horseback riding license, camping license, bird watching license, hippy license, bridge jumping in public water license, pay gates into public lands... Oh, no wait, hunters and fisherfolks will cover it all for everyone.
It's illegal to jump from public bridges :tung:
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 07:33:08 PM
Why don't they charge us extra for something we really want, and wouldn't mind paying for? Like a bear baiting permit. Or a cougar hound hunting permit? And how about raising non-resident application fees for moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goat?Those would be a drop in the bucket (unless your bait permit is several thousand dollars). Plus, those would need to be passed by the legislature (good luck with the liberals in control).
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 16, 2018, 07:35:46 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: usmc74 on July 16, 2018, 07:39:37 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 07:43:58 PM
maybe fine poachers a real fineDoesn't matter. The fines go to the county government not WDFW.
Post by: Curly on July 16, 2018, 07:48:20 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 07:51:33 PM
B-T, do you think there's anything the WDFW could stop doing or turn over to a different agency? Or possibly use subcontractors for?Do they have to stock trout in lakes? Nope. Do they have to release pheasants at release sites? Nope. There's a lot of things they could eliminate that would save $ but would also piss off a lot of people at the same time.
Realistically, the court mandates are the big issues simply because they don't come with any money.
Are there things that can be turned over to a different agency? Well in all honestly I think there are things that fall under DNR's mandate that should actually fall under WDFW. I'm sure there are some things that could be better handled by other agencies but they don't really stick out since they don't stick out they're probably not that big of a financial hit.
Those of us who can remember 30+ years ago and how the department has changed can tell you how there's less WDFW Officers (about 30 less than when the merger happened in 94 yet the population and enforcement areas have increased), less biologists, less field techs, less WDFW lands maintenance people, etc. There's this mindset that WDFW employees are just popping out all over, it's not true. I mean you have maintenance guys covering entire regions whereas they used to cover a county.
Post by: bigtex on July 16, 2018, 07:54:41 PM
It really is shocking that the consultant found no problem with management practices. We are always hearing about wasteful spending, but I guess a lot of that wasteful spending can be blamed on the legislature and the feds. Although I do think there has to be some blame to go around (such as that wolf consultant).Every agency has wasteful spending, just like every single one of us has spent money on things we shouldn't have. Quite honestly, WDFW has been under the microscope the past few years so I think they've probably been smarter with their $.
Post by: snake on July 16, 2018, 08:05:43 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 16, 2018, 08:12:10 PM
If the state wont make bikers tab their bikes the wdfw should require some kind of tag for the roads and trails.(can they)
Everyone that uses the outdoors owes it to the next person to pay their share somehow. :twocents:
Shed some more light for me if you will bigtex:All the money from the antis,the wolf and owl lovers.Where does this money go?Does it go to legislatures and never into the WDFW funds at all.I mean the laws don't enforce themselves so should the outdoors men and women of this state file suit against the state for this funding to be put where it obviously is meant to go?
Post by: B4noon on July 16, 2018, 08:17:18 PM
Post by: Bob33 on July 16, 2018, 08:27:53 PM
People cheer for athletes who make $20 million a year to hit a round thing with a stick or stick a round thing in a hoop.It really is shocking that the consultant found no problem with management practices. We are always hearing about wasteful spending, but I guess a lot of that wasteful spending can be blamed on the legislature and the feds. Although I do think there has to be some blame to go around (such as that wolf consultant).Every agency has wasteful spending, just like every single one of us has spent money on things we shouldn't have. Quite honestly, WDFW has been under the microscope the past few years so I think they've probably been smarter with their $.
Yet someone who has the task of trying to find common ground between two groups who intensely distrust and even hate each other (and according to both sides has done a good job) isn't worth a tenth of that.
Post by: hunter399 on July 16, 2018, 08:34:34 PM
There's already a lot of people that won't hunt because of the mismanaged wildlife.That's why there is a decrease in hunters every year.Between predators,the reckless way they slaughtered does with permits each year.(Which is breeding stock.) I see there funding going downhill fast. They can say it's not a management problem but a lot of Washington hunters are giving there money to other states or not hunting at all.
Seems there is a management problem. :twocents:
Post by: B4noon on July 16, 2018, 08:39:31 PM
Post by: Mudman on July 16, 2018, 08:49:36 PM
With the way they manage wildlife ,goodluck raising fees .Nail on head. Top down Gov. over reach. Loss of revenue due to permit raping, no baiting, no hounds, wolves and predation losses, Disc pass anger, paper wet tags, stupid herd management, killing elk to stop Hoof rot so the healthy ones can get sick.
There's already a lot of people that won't hunt because of the mismanaged wildlife.That's why there is a decrease in hunters every year.Between predators,the reckless way they slaughtered does with permits each year.(Which is breeding stock.) I see there funding going downhill fast. They can say it's not a management problem but a lot of Washington hunters are giving there money to other states or not hunting at all.
Seems there is a management problem. :twocents:
Post by: cbond3318 on July 16, 2018, 09:06:26 PM
Post by: WSU on July 16, 2018, 09:37:52 PM
Post by: ipkus on July 16, 2018, 09:45:12 PM
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
Post by: jmscon on July 16, 2018, 11:05:16 PM
Kind of a viscous cycle, if you can’t manage the herd to please the hunter the hunter won’t buy tags. If the hunter doesn’t buy tags then there is no money to manage the herds. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on July 16, 2018, 11:57:40 PM
The consultant found that "WDFW's management practices had not contributed to the funding problem."
:chuckle:
+1
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 05:32:36 AM
Sounds like par for the course, not getting an answer you don't want to hear, which would militate against the preselected price hike solution.
Predators don't buy tags and special permit apps.
Post by: hunter399 on July 17, 2018, 08:12:20 AM
I wonder how much this consultant cost?The consultant found that "WDFW's management practices had not contributed to the funding problem."
:chuckle:
+1
No accountability,we don't have a management problem.
Give me a break.
I also +1 on the above comments.
Post by: Stein on July 17, 2018, 08:17:35 AM
Bigtex,
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
From what the local bio that runs the private lands program told me, WDFW IT support is provided by the state, not their staff. They have no choice, the state mandates control over their website and they can only submit requests to get things fixed or upgraded - hence the reason for all of the huge delays in making things better. Last time I heard, there was a 1-2 year wait for major upgrades.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 17, 2018, 08:32:20 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on July 17, 2018, 08:44:20 AM
Bigtex,Quite a few years ago I attended some leadership training for natural resources agencies. At that time, one yardstick of efficiency was the proportion of total employees working in the state capitol. A highly efficient agency had 30% or less of employees in the capitol. Last I saw there are about 900 in Olympia and 600 in the remainder of the state. This is why, as Bigtex noted, there are less LEOs, biologists, land managers and other professionals in the field, even though total employment has increased.
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
One huge problem with state government that I doubt a consultant would see is the Washington Management System. WMS determines state agency manager pay largely by how many subordinates they have and how big their budget is. State agency managers have every incentive to have more people working under them, especially as personnel increases are the easiest way to both spend more money and supervise more people. An honest, dedicated supervisor in state government will try to do the most they can with the fewest resources, and is rewarded by being paid less. At the same time, they see cunning bureaucrats who can secure funding and increase their number of underlings advance and make more money. It is a toxic system that promotes waste and inefficiency, penalizes dedication and innovation, and crushes dedicated professionals into interchangeable government employee widgets.
Post by: vandeman17 on July 17, 2018, 09:05:58 AM
Only bought a deer tag and waterfowl endorsement this year and this just makes it easier for me to take my money elsewhere.
Post by: Man Tracker on July 17, 2018, 10:13:51 AM
Post by: Special T on July 17, 2018, 11:29:56 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 11:36:40 AM
Most consultants are there to justify a position held by those paying the consultant. It is a rare occasion that the person footing the bill wants the truth. I've had personal experience with this and my professor whom owned a marketing agency prior said it was the norm.
I can see the need for a consultant in technical fields or other specialty fields where you don't have the expertise or time to devote to a particular problem.
But here, it seems like WDFW_manager1 could have just turned to WDFW_manager2 and said, "We are doing a fine job, Right?" and called it good to go for price hikes. This just seems like some kind of protect your phoney baloney job CYA maneuver to pin the accountability on a faceless consultant? "Our hands are tied; consultant said we don't need to change anything but price hikes."
Why do you need a consultant to intervene?
And isn't there some state auditor who could have performed at least the same apparently shoddy job without the extra expense?
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:23:03 PM
Last weekend i was checked on a small lake north of Spokane at 9:00PM while fishing on a saturday. there was 3 officers in the boat. Doesn't make any sense to me. Waste of money.Could easily be a field training officer and a trainee, along with another officer. When an officer is in the FTO process the FTO and trainee are considered to be one officer because the trainee must be under the direction of the FTO. This is common amongst all LE agencies.
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:24:05 PM
Shed some more light for me if you will bigtex:All the money from the antis,the wolf and owl lovers.Where does this money go?Does it go to legislatures and never into the WDFW funds at all.I mean the laws don't enforce themselves so should the outdoors men and women of this state file suit against the state for this funding to be put where it obviously is meant to go?What money are you talking about? There's not a anti-hunting license out there...
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:28:03 PM
The biggest waste of money is we have duplicate service throughout 3 branches of government that need to be consolidated like other states. Once we put Parks, DNR, and WDFW in the same agency we will eliminate a ton of duplicate work that all 3 agencies participate in no sense having 3 pygmy rabbit bio's working for 3 different agencies combine and it will afford us a better recreational service and sounder stewardship for our lands and wildlife. I know they tried to entertain the idea years ago but with this continued trend of less opportunity and more fees something has to giveYou merge all three and you end up with a bigger bureaucracy then what we currently have. Additionally, many people want to break up Fisheries and Wildlife like we had pre 1994. In the rare instances you do merge agencies there are always winners and losers, when Fisheries and Wildlife merged the fisheries side won. Would it reduce some duplication, maybe there's really not that much right now. State Parks doesn't have hardly any biologists. If you merge all three agencies you would still need the same amount of maintenance people to maintain the lands, it's not like the acreage would decrease, etc.
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:30:14 PM
In a centralized agency, please explain the purpose of having six DFW Regional Managers? What exactly do they do? How much would be saved w/o them? Each DFW Program has a supervisor at the region, as well in Olympia. Is it an additional cost w/o benefit to have a Regional Manager?:yeah:
This one is always a hot topic. Realistically a WDFW Regional Manager is simply a political figurehead for the region.
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:35:32 PM
Bigtex,The consultant looked at WDFW IT staffing and found it did not need to be increased or decreased.
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
WDFW has one IT person per 30 employees
DNR has one IT person per 35 employees
WA Ecology has one IT person per 16 employees
State Parks has one IT person per 57 employees (inflated due to the high amount of seasonal employees in the agency)
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 01:42:35 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:44:18 PM
Haven’t read the entire thread so please excuse me if this has been said or asked. I’ve heard your a DNR employee bigtex, but wonder if you know this, how much money does the state take from the Wdfw to put in the general fund? Seems to me, if the Wdfw could use all the revenue they create, then they would have plenty of funds??Not a DNR employee.
The state doesn't take WDFW money and put it into the general fund. They used to take fishing fees but that was long ago. 100% of license fees stay within WDFW.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 01:46:41 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 01:47:56 PM
So raffles, permit apps etc all go to the Wdfw? ThanksYes.
The following lists what goes into the Wildlife Fund: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.12.170
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 01:56:01 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 02:02:27 PM
Gotcha, thanks for that link. Prob wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket but seems like the Wdfw should get the revenue from seized property that is sold. Tough thing to understand why the shortage, it’s definetly not from too many officers in the field. I’d be willing to pay 10-20 dollars more if it doubled the amount of wildlife police in the field! Like someone said already, triple the poaching fees and make them stick!! Appoint procecutors that give a damn about fish n game.They get those funds, it goes to the fish and wildlife enforcement reward account which funds the WDFW poaching rewards, some hunter ED things, etc. But your right its a drop in the bucket.
WDFW oversees multiple accounts, the biggest and most important is the Wildlife Account.
Like I've already mentioned, increasing poaching fines wouldn't help the budget issue as they stay within the county budget. To top it off, many people don't like fines going back to the originating agency because they see it as "your just giving me a ticket because your agency wants the $"
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 02:08:52 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 17, 2018, 02:12:40 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 02:28:26 PM
casino money?Even better, relax the rules on non-native casinos to match the tribes rules!! Excellent idea!
Post by: huntnphool on July 17, 2018, 02:49:59 PM
casino money?Even better, relax the rules on non-native casinos to match the tribes rules!! Excellent idea!
Never happen, our Dem. Governors are elbow deep into the Indians pockets.
Post by: B4noon on July 17, 2018, 02:51:09 PM
Haven’t read the entire thread so please excuse me if this has been said or asked. I’ve heard your a DNR employee bigtex, but wonder if you know this, how much money does the state take from the Wdfw to put in the general fund? Seems to me, if the Wdfw could use all the revenue they create, then they would have plenty of funds??Not a DNR employee.
The state doesn't take WDFW money and put it into the general fund. They used to take fishing fees but that was long ago. 100% of license fees stay within WDFW.
Post by: B4noon on July 17, 2018, 02:54:37 PM
Haven’t read the entire thread so please excuse me if this has been said or asked. I’ve heard your a DNR employee bigtex, but wonder if you know this, how much money does the state take from the Wdfw to put in the general fund? Seems to me, if the Wdfw could use all the revenue they create, then they would have plenty of funds??Not a DNR employee.
The state doesn't take WDFW money and put it into the general fund. They used to take fishing fees but that was long ago. 100% of license fees stay within WDFW.
Seems to me then it would not be wise to shutdown hatcheries as they have proposed and that they would be wise to market and promote recreational opportunity to generate more revenue. Have they ever thought of the reverse effect reduce license fees by 10% and you will more then make up for it in sheer numbers of license sold on top of they would start getting some support from the recreational license buyer who is tired of taking it in the shorts
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 02:55:33 PM
or heads too far up their ......casino money?Even better, relax the rules on non-native casinos to match the tribes rules!! Excellent idea!
Never happen, our Dem. Governors are elbow deep into the Indians pockets.
Post by: baker5150 on July 17, 2018, 03:55:57 PM
casino money?Even better, relax the rules on non-native casinos to match the tribes rules!! Excellent idea!
Never happen, our Dem. Governors are elbow deep into the Indians pockets.
He does like his taxes though...... :dunno:
Post by: Mudman on July 17, 2018, 04:52:22 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 05:05:56 PM
Explain to the "Consultant" Idaho offers so much more to its people for less $. Why is that? Maybe they can start there and figure out how they need to improve? This isn't rocket science with fanatical solutions, its common sense. WDFW has lost many of hunters revenue for many reasons. Fix the problems, manage animals better etc. and watch the $ increase. Personally it feels hopeless to expect lib state to be smart. :twocents:They sell wolf tags,That's why they have more to offer.This state's gov. takes money from antis (wolf,hounds for bears cougars etc)I really am starting to feel that this state is purposely trying to make hunting obsolete in this state.
Olympia has ruined everything good about WDFW in my opinion.They rule the dept. in an anti hunting environment.
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2018, 05:07:10 PM
Explain to the "Consultant" Idaho offers so much more to its people for less $. Why is that? Maybe they can start there and figure out how they need to improve? This isn't rocket science with fanatical solutions, its common sense. WDFW has lost many of hunters revenue for many reasons. Fix the problems, manage animals better etc. and watch the $ increase. Personally it feels hopeless to expect lib state to be smart. :twocents:
You mean fire all the predator protecting wolf-lovers employed at WDF&Wolves>CNW, DoW, biologists, conflict specialist, etc, in essence pretty much the whole dam outfit and start over with a "Game Department" instead of a piss poor department.
Post by: trophyhunt on July 17, 2018, 05:09:44 PM
Post by: baker5150 on July 17, 2018, 06:35:52 PM
The number of permit applications has been going up the past few years, not down. I think more people talk about not hunting in wa than really do quit.
11% decrease over the last 10 years, in license sales.
Not even close to enough revenue to make up the deficit.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 07:03:01 PM
That said wasn't it just last year (scratch that it was this year that they caught it) that an IT worker stole 80k+ fuel bill was found after a very long use was finally discovered to be going on?That seemed like a dept. problem.
here it is.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/it-worker-allegedly-stole-80000-worth-of-fuel-using-wdfw-gas-cards/
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 07:24:12 PM
I'm curious to know with all this talk of no problem found if there truly is a deficit.If no one is doing anything wrong how could there possibly be this big of a deficit?80K out of almost a half billion dollar budget. Employees at every level (city, county, state, federal) are always getting in trouble for theft, just like they are in the private sector. There's always those who will take advantage of that government/company credit card.
That said wasn't it just last year (scratch that it was this year that they caught it) that an IT worker stole 80k+ fuel bill was found after a very long use was finally discovered to be going on?That seemed like a dept. problem.
here it is.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/it-worker-allegedly-stole-80000-worth-of-fuel-using-wdfw-gas-cards/
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 07:25:22 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 07:27:09 PM
When there is 1 there is usually more,was this left out of the report?looks like it to me.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 07:28:34 PM
This should not be minimized.I'm curious to know with all this talk of no problem found if there truly is a deficit.If no one is doing anything wrong how could there possibly be this big of a deficit?80K out of almost a half billion dollar budget. Employees at every level (city, county, state, federal) are always getting in trouble for theft, just like they are in the private sector. There's always those who will take advantage of that government/company credit card.
That said wasn't it just last year (scratch that it was this year that they caught it) that an IT worker stole 80k+ fuel bill was found after a very long use was finally discovered to be going on?That seemed like a dept. problem.
here it is.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/it-worker-allegedly-stole-80000-worth-of-fuel-using-wdfw-gas-cards/
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 07:33:37 PM
And the employee has been fired, charged with criminal charges, and the WDFW has changed it's fueling procedures.This should not be minimized.I'm curious to know with all this talk of no problem found if there truly is a deficit.If no one is doing anything wrong how could there possibly be this big of a deficit?80K out of almost a half billion dollar budget. Employees at every level (city, county, state, federal) are always getting in trouble for theft, just like they are in the private sector. There's always those who will take advantage of that government/company credit card.
That said wasn't it just last year (scratch that it was this year that they caught it) that an IT worker stole 80k+ fuel bill was found after a very long use was finally discovered to be going on?That seemed like a dept. problem.
here it is.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/it-worker-allegedly-stole-80000-worth-of-fuel-using-wdfw-gas-cards/
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 07:38:01 PM
agreed?
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 07:49:49 PM
Good they made a change when it was needed,Wish it would become a trend but i doubt it.The fact is and you said it yourself,No agency is without fault so for this consultant to come out and say that the dept. holds no fault in the deficit is total garbage.There's a big difference between WDFW is responsible for the $30,000,000 deficit and did WDFW spend 100% of their money wisely. Nobody, whether it's a company, government agency, or an individual spends 100% of their money wisely. We all make bad purchases, investments, etc. For WDFW they erred in trusting an employee with a gas card and it cost them 80k, now if it all goes well they will recoup that amount when the individual is found guilty. But do I think because one employee committed theft that WDFW is to blame for the courts ruling against the state and now the state having to spend hundreds of millions on salmon projects, or the state legislature creating programs without funding them WDFW's fault? No.
agreed?
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
starting to add up?Only 2 items and its 1/2 a million.
Post by: bigtex on July 17, 2018, 07:54:49 PM
How about this?http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestock/20171221/wdfw-pens-425000-contract-extension-with-wolf-consultant starting to add up?Only 2 items and its 1/2 a million.You do realize I am not the outside consultant correct? If you have an issue with the report then contact them and the state legislature since they are the ones who wanted it.
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 08:12:37 PM
We all make bad purchases, investments, etc.
We all don't have the option to dip into somebody else's pockets to finance our continued misadventures.
Does WDFW practice ZBB? Well-run private firms do.
Which reminds me to ask. Is this $30M shortfall a shortfall on a budget increase or a shortfall over last year's budget?
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 08:16:23 PM
How about this? http://www.capitalpress.com/Livestock/20171221/wdfw-pens-425000-contract-extension-with-wolf-consultant
starting to add up?Only 2 items and its 1/2 a million.
Or 1.7% of the shortfall.
Post by: Humptulips on July 17, 2018, 08:29:26 PM
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 08:32:13 PM
Post by: hunter399 on July 17, 2018, 08:33:02 PM
DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?Agreed!
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Post by: hunter399 on July 17, 2018, 08:35:39 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 08:48:19 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on July 17, 2018, 08:58:14 PM
Bigtex,Quite a few years ago I attended some leadership training for natural resources agencies. At that time, one yardstick of efficiency was the proportion of total employees working in the state capitol. A highly efficient agency had 30% or less of employees in the capitol. Last I saw there are about 900 in Olympia and 600 in the remainder of the state. This is why, as Bigtex noted, there are less LEOs, biologists, land managers and other professionals in the field, even though total employment has increased.
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
One huge problem with state government that I doubt a consultant would see is the Washington Management System. WMS determines state agency manager pay largely by how many subordinates they have and how big their budget is. State agency managers have every incentive to have more people working under them, especially as personnel increases are the easiest way to both spend more money and supervise more people. An honest, dedicated supervisor in state government will try to do the most they can with the fewest resources, and is rewarded by being paid less. At the same time, they see cunning bureaucrats who can secure funding and increase their number of underlings advance and make more money. It is a toxic system that promotes waste and inefficiency, penalizes dedication and innovation, and crushes dedicated professionals into interchangeable government employee widgets.
You are so right on. I witnessed that my entire career with WDFW, especially the period from mid 80's on. When these types of questions surfaced at sportsman's meetings that I attended statewide giving program presentations, I always use to tell folks that there are two types of state employees, one with the public interest in mind, and the other consumed by self interest.
Doublelung hit the nail on the head. Self interest types hire needless employees to do what they are paid to do and in doing so raise their salary level significantly over time. Since they are not interested per se in you the public, they have plenty of time to play politics and climb the ladder. The bad thing is it puts them in the decision making arena and not knowing what is what, they usually play devil's advocate trying to avoid decisions and look academic.. Frankly quite sad. On the other hand, public interest types are constantly tying to improve the resource and opportunity that goes with it for the public That doesn't leave time for games let alone the desire to even play if time was there. These public efforts usually comes with objections, roadblocks and many time back stabbing and loss of promotional opportunity relatively speaking in comparison to the Mr. Me's.
As pointed out above, those selfies end up getting paid much more, do much less for you and even more regrettably end up with considerably bigger retirements than the public interest types who spent their entire career fighting for the sportsman of the state. Doesn't really make sense, but that's the reality.
However I can assure you that the public types reward's come from doing what they loved doing, trying to make a difference for you and the resource. Monetary rewards were always secondary. in closing I might add that the assessment of WDFW shortfall is another smoke and mirror job Get rid of half of the needless jobs at headquarters, centralize programs and get rid of the expensive regional hierarchy. Problem solved. But at this point it would take Trump to do it, not somebody engrained in state government from Ecology.
For what it's worth. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on July 17, 2018, 09:10:34 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 17, 2018, 09:14:39 PM
Bigtex,Quite a few years ago I attended some leadership training for natural resources agencies. At that time, one yardstick of efficiency was the proportion of total employees working in the state capitol. A highly efficient agency had 30% or less of employees in the capitol. Last I saw there are about 900 in Olympia and 600 in the remainder of the state. This is why, as Bigtex noted, there are less LEOs, biologists, land managers and other professionals in the field, even though total employment has increased.
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
One huge problem with state government that I doubt a consultant would see is the Washington Management System. WMS determines state agency manager pay largely by how many subordinates they have and how big their budget is. State agency managers have every incentive to have more people working under them, especially as personnel increases are the easiest way to both spend more money and supervise more people. An honest, dedicated supervisor in state government will try to do the most they can with the fewest resources, and is rewarded by being paid less. At the same time, they see cunning bureaucrats who can secure funding and increase their number of underlings advance and make more money. It is a toxic system that promotes waste and inefficiency, penalizes dedication and innovation, and crushes dedicated professionals into interchangeable government employee widgets.
You are so right on. I witnessed that my entire career with WDFW, especially the period from mid 80's on. When these types of questions surfaced at sportsman's meetings that I attended statewide giving program presentations, I always use to tell folks that there are two types of state employees, one with the public interest in mind, and the other consumed by self interest.
Doublelung hit the nail on the head. Self interest types hire needless employees to do what they are paid to do and in doing so raise their salary level significantly over time. Since they are not interested per se in you the public, they have plenty of time to play politics and climb the ladder. The bad thing is it puts them in the decision making arena and not knowing what is what, they usually play devil's advocate trying to avoid decisions and look academic.. Frankly quite sad. On the other hand, public interest types are constantly tying to improve the resource and opportunity that goes with it for the public That doesn't leave time for games let alone the desire to even play if time was there. These public efforts usually comes with objections, roadblocks and many time back stabbing and loss of promotional opportunity relatively speaking in comparison to the Mr. Me's.
As pointed out above, those selfies end up getting paid much more, do much less for you and even more regrettably end up with considerably bigger retirements than the public interest types who spent their entire career fighting for the sportsman of the state. Doesn't really make sense, but that's the reality.
However I can assure you that the public types reward's come from doing what they loved doing, trying to make a difference for you and the resource. Monetary rewards were always secondary. in closing I might add that the assessment of WDFW shortfall is another smoke and mirror job Get rid of half of the needless jobs at headquarters, centralize programs and get rid of the expensive regional hierarchy. Problem solved. But at this point it would take Trump to do it, not somebody engrained in state government from Ecology.
For what it's worth. :twocents:
It's worth more than what they paid the consultant, that is for certain.
Post by: Bob33 on July 17, 2018, 09:18:31 PM
Having worked in the private sector for decades, I can say that unfortunately many private firms work in as similar fashion.Bigtex,Quite a few years ago I attended some leadership training for natural resources agencies. At that time, one yardstick of efficiency was the proportion of total employees working in the state capitol. A highly efficient agency had 30% or less of employees in the capitol. Last I saw there are about 900 in Olympia and 600 in the remainder of the state. This is why, as Bigtex noted, there are less LEOs, biologists, land managers and other professionals in the field, even though total employment has increased.
Just one example.
How many IT people work for WDFW? Why?
If you can honestly say WDFW isn’t bloated with non field personnel in Olympia, then I can only assume you work in Olympia.
As they say on ESPN “...come on, man!”
One huge problem with state government that I doubt a consultant would see is the Washington Management System. WMS determines state agency manager pay largely by how many subordinates they have and how big their budget is. State agency managers have every incentive to have more people working under them, especially as personnel increases are the easiest way to both spend more money and supervise more people. An honest, dedicated supervisor in state government will try to do the most they can with the fewest resources, and is rewarded by being paid less. At the same time, they see cunning bureaucrats who can secure funding and increase their number of underlings advance and make more money. It is a toxic system that promotes waste and inefficiency, penalizes dedication and innovation, and crushes dedicated professionals into interchangeable government employee widgets.
You are so right on. I witnessed that my entire career with WDFW, especially the period from mid 80's on. When these types of questions surfaced at sportsman's meetings that I attended statewide giving program presentations, I always use to tell folks that there are two types of state employees, one with the public interest in mind, and the other consumed by self interest.
Doublelung hit the nail on the head. Self interest types hire needless employees to do what they are paid to do and in doing so raise their salary level significantly over time. Since they are not interested per se in you the public, they have plenty of time to play politics and climb the ladder. The bad thing is it puts them in the decision making arena and not knowing what is what, they usually play devil's advocate trying to avoid decisions and look academic.. Frankly quite sad. On the other hand, public interest types are constantly tying to improve the resource and opportunity that goes with it for the public That doesn't leave time for games let alone the desire to even play if time was there. These public efforts usually comes with objections, roadblocks and many time back stabbing and loss of promotional opportunity relatively speaking in comparison to the Mr. Me's.
As pointed out above, those selfies end up getting paid much more, do much less for you and even more regrettably end up with considerably bigger retirements than the public interest types who spent their entire career fighting for the sportsman of the state. Doesn't really make sense, but that's the reality.
However I can assure you that the public types reward's come from doing what they loved doing, trying to make a difference for you and the resource. Monetary rewards were always secondary. in closing I might add that the assessment of WDFW shortfall is another smoke and mirror job Get rid of half of the needless jobs at headquarters, centralize programs and get rid of the expensive regional hierarchy. Problem solved. But at this point it would take Trump to do it, not somebody engrained in state government from Ecology.
For what it's worth. :twocents:
Post by: WSU on July 17, 2018, 10:04:13 PM
And the employee has been fired, charged with criminal charges, and the WDFW has changed it's fueling procedures.This should not be minimized.I'm curious to know with all this talk of no problem found if there truly is a deficit.If no one is doing anything wrong how could there possibly be this big of a deficit?80K out of almost a half billion dollar budget. Employees at every level (city, county, state, federal) are always getting in trouble for theft, just like they are in the private sector. There's always those who will take advantage of that government/company credit card.
That said wasn't it just last year (scratch that it was this year that they caught it) that an IT worker stole 80k+ fuel bill was found after a very long use was finally discovered to be going on?That seemed like a dept. problem.
here it is.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/it-worker-allegedly-stole-80000-worth-of-fuel-using-wdfw-gas-cards/
$80k sounds like a lot of money. But, also consider the cost to closely monitor gas expenses agency wide. You likely need at least one employee. Even at fairly entry level, you’d spend $80k real quick after taxes, benefits, lni, pay, etc,
Even in the private sector, it’s often more cheaper to just pay for some problems instead of seeking perfection everywhere.
Post by: dontgetcrabs on July 17, 2018, 10:13:32 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 17, 2018, 10:15:20 PM
Post by: wolfbait on July 17, 2018, 10:27:51 PM
Strengthen conservation partnerships-Leverage taxpayer dollars by expanding on WDFW’s existing partnerships and identifying new opportunities for cooperating with other organizations.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf
People and Predation
by Rex Dalton
The biocentric eco-activists who seek the removal of industrial civilization from North America consider human life just another link in the food chain.
"Biocentrism," the ideology that inspired the Wildlands Project, holds that humanity is just one species in a democratic "biosphere." From this perspective, humans who choose to live within the habitat of a protected non-human species are interlopers. This is why Wildlands fanatics - in addition to shutting down economic development, private land ownership, and recreational use of "re-wilded" lands - seek to "re-colonize" those lands with non-human species. This process is presently underway within the proposed Yellowstone-to-Yukon (Y2Y) "bioregion." (For the background on the Wildlands Project and Y2Y, see the article on page 17.)
"Already, transplanted wolves from [British Columbia's Muskwa-Kechika] region formed the foundation of Yellowstone's successful lobo transplantation program," reported the Christian Science Monitor. "Thriving Canadian lynx and wolverine populations could also be tapped for augmentation. And [last] November, the US Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], in conjunction with a plan by Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Federation, announced that in 2002 Canadian grizzly bears will be relocated to the Selway-Bitterroot wilderness of Montana and Idaho."
Animals like the grizzly, lynx, and wolf are what Wildlands co-architect Reed Noss calls "flagships" - "charismatic species that serve as popular symbols for conservation." Wildlands propaganda abounds in poignant pleas on behalf of threatened "flagship" species and invocations of the duty to preserve such animals "for our children." Such media-friendly mantras are used to conceal the vicious misanthropy that animates the Wildlands Project. As Wildlands activist John Davis stresses, "in the long run all lands and waters should be left to the whims of Nature, not to the selfish desires of one species which chose for itself the misnomer Homo Sapiens."
According to Wildlands-linked activists on the Canadian side of the Y2Y zone, human beings across most of the western half of North America may have to be shoved aside to make room for grizzlies. British Columbia's Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy, which was published in 1995 and remains the basis for the province's protected areas policy, employs the "charismatic species" concept by insisting that "nothing is a better measure of our success in maintaining biodiversity than the survival of this species."
Apparently, "recovery" of the grizzlies will require ample Lebensraum, since "over its lifetime, a single grizzly bear will require a home range between 50 and 100 square kilometers, and - in some cases - up to thousands of square kilometers." Within "grizzly bear management areas," continues the document, human activities "that are not compatible with grizzly bears [will be] carefully controlled or not allowed."
The Wildlands Project mission statement speaks of a day in which "Grizzlies in Chihuahua have an unbroken connection to Grizzlies in Alaska...." British Columbia's provincial Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy reflects that same vision by describing the historical range of the North American grizzly as encompassing "the western half of North America from the Arctic to central Mexico" - thereby conjuring up the decidedly improbable image of grizzlies frolicking on the slopes of Popocatepetl (see map) [map not present in web version -AMPP Ed.].
"Zone of Imminent Danger"
The case of Montana rancher John Shuler, who was fined $7,000 by the FWS for killing a grizzly that had attacked his sheep and threatened his home, illustrates that in conflicts between humans and non-human predators within protected areas, it is the predator that will be given the benefit of the doubt. When Shuler appealed the FWS fine, a federal administrative law judge ruled that when he had sought to protect his property he had "purposefully place[d] himself in the zone of imminent danger of a bear attack" and fined the rancher an additional $4,000.
Wildlands activists seeking to recover large predators throughout the mountainous West are placing landowners across the region in the "zone of imminent danger" by design. According to one supporter of re-wilding Western lands, the introduction of large predators like grizzly bears and wolves is to "bring back another element that has been vanishing from the Western back country. That ingredient is fear. Wolves [and similar large predators] are killers.... People will think twice before traipsing into the back country."
According to Wildlands Project board president Harvey Locke, "helping large carnivores recolonize parts of their former range" is a major aim of the re-wilding process, since the effort would "preserve or restore species at the top of the food chain." This would come as news to those people in the areas slated for re-wilding, who may have assumed that humans are the "species at the top of the food chain." Difficult though it may be for rational people to understand, many biocentric radicals consider ecologically "unenlightened" humans to be little more than a source of protein for non-human predators.
In July 1997, a female cougar killed a 10-year-old in Colorado's Rocky Mountain Park. Rangers tracked the animal down and killed it, prompting voluble protests from several biocentric fanatics. "The female lion represented the future of her species, which I believe has an equal right to exist on this planet," wrote environmental activist Gary Lane in a letter to the editor of a local paper. "The lioness deserved better treatment from the rangers." The cougar's destruction also angered Sherrie Tippie of Wildlife 2000, a Denver-based biocentric group, who complained that "the only species we have too many of is the human one. I am very concerned about the influx of people into our state who are not educated about our wildlife."
In 1990, California voters approved Proposition 117, a measure banning the sport hunting of mountain lions. In predictable fashion, the cougar population exploded, ravaging food sources and driving the starving carnivores into human population centers in search of sustenance - with lethal consequences for both livestock and human beings.
After a cougar attacked a 10-year-old girl near Los Angeles in September 1993, two park rangers reluctantly dispatched the crazed predator. Other attacks resulted in physical injury to human beings. Finally, in April 1994, a woman named Barbara Schoener was attacked by an 82-pound female cougar. The cat crushed Schoener's skull, then dragged the hapless jogger 300 feet and devoured her face and most of her internal organs. Fish and Game officials hunted the cougar down and killed it, and in doing so provoked the wrath of local biocentrists.
In a letter to the Sacramento Bee, one eco-radical suggested that "this noble creature may well have been venting centuries of mountain-lion anger against the humans who have driven it from its land, destroyed its home, ruthlessly hunted it down, and, as the final indignity, debased it to an advertising device to sell cars." Wayne Pacelle, vice president of the Humane Society, accused those who were outraged by the death of Barbara Schoener of using harmful stereotypes. "The HSUS accepts that individual animals judged to be a threat to people should be removed. But the injurious act of one animal should not provide a license to wreak vengeance on other members of an animal population.We are encroaching on their habitat, and we must respect that they should have a place to live as well." (Emphasis added.)
In late 1995, 56-year-old high school counselor Iris Kenna was attacked and mauled by a 140-pound cougar in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park near San Diego. Commenting on that and other cougar attacks, pollster Michael Manfredo told the January 8, 1996 issue of Newsweek: "There's a value shift about how people view wildlife, a high willingness to accept mountain lions on the urban fringe - even if they kill people." As the Wildlands Project unfolds, cougars, wolves, bears, and other predators will have ample opportunities to test that "value shift."
Some eco-radicals have candidly admitted that one purpose to be served by re-colonizing predators in or near populated areas is to drive recalcitrant humans off the land. Few biocentric radicals have expressed this militant misanthropy as candidly as David Garber, a research biologist with the National Park Service:
Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature, but that isn't true.... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and educational purposes only. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
from Nature, 2001-May-31 (N.411 P.509)
http://www.klamathbucketbrigade.org/Nature_PeopleandPredation062005.htm
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2018, 11:04:18 PM
Post by: buglebrush on July 17, 2018, 11:10:58 PM
Exactly!DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?Agreed!
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 02:43:06 AM
DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?And those things are funded by the general fund, not the wildlife fund.
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 05:24:15 AM
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 18, 2018, 05:29:59 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 05:34:44 AM
You're not going to grow hunting and fishing ranks when license increases outpace growth in disposable income.
How about a little representation with that taxation? Maybe then it wouldn't be such a bitter pill to swallow.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:17:26 AM
"WDFW's biggest budget problem was simply a growing workload demanded on them by the state legislature (enacting new/enhanced programs), the federal government, and the court system without proper funding for those items, essentially unfunded mandates."They've been directed to use ZBB as part of this budget review process.
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on July 18, 2018, 06:19:13 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2018, 06:23:04 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 06:26:27 AM
That will show what WDFW's true policy priorities are.
If that is part of the consultant expenditure, I approve, at least as to that portion. The no management practices caused this still stinks.
Post by: boneaddict on July 18, 2018, 06:29:28 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 06:41:53 AM
"WDFW's biggest budget problem was simply a growing workload demanded on them by the state legislature (enacting new/enhanced programs), the federal government, and the court system without proper funding for those items, essentially unfunded mandates."They've been directed to use ZBB as part of this budget review process.
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Is this written somewhere?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 18, 2018, 06:43:32 AM
I'm beginning to think that turning 60 is heralding the end of my hunting career. Too much money and too many hunters pushed into fewer units with declining game populations - predators, hoof disease, CWD, out-of-balance or arbitrary tag allocations. It's just going to get worse for the wildlife and their supposed managers, and us hunters. However, it'll be great for all of those antis who pay nothing into the system and have more influence on the governor and commission than we. Way to go destroying the North American Wildlife Conservation Model in WA. :tup:
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:44:42 AM
It's in the state budget bill/law that started this whole review.Is this written somewhere?"WDFW's biggest budget problem was simply a growing workload demanded on them by the state legislature (enacting new/enhanced programs), the federal government, and the court system without proper funding for those items, essentially unfunded mandates."They've been directed to use ZBB as part of this budget review process.
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 06:48:19 AM
They do not, and the from what I've heard their accounting is so convoluted that a simple look at it is all you need to see some major issues.We all make bad purchases, investments, etc.
We all don't have the option to dip into somebody else's pockets to finance our continued misadventures.
Does WDFW practice ZBB? Well-run private firms do.
Which reminds me to ask. Is this $30M shortfall a shortfall on a budget increase or a shortfall over last year's budget?
It seems all to co.mon for Gov agencies not to have to adhere to basic accounting principles that private enterprise must.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:52:21 AM
They started using ZBB as part of their most recent budget.They do not, and the from what I've heard their accounting is so convoluted that a simple look at it is all you need to see some major issues.We all make bad purchases, investments, etc.
We all don't have the option to dip into somebody else's pockets to finance our continued misadventures.
Does WDFW practice ZBB? Well-run private firms do.
Which reminds me to ask. Is this $30M shortfall a shortfall on a budget increase or a shortfall over last year's budget?
It seems all to co.mon for Gov agencies not to have to adhere to basic accounting principles that private enterprise must.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
They may be the only state agency that does it (basically because they were forced to).
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 06:53:42 AM
It's in the state budget bill/law that started this whole review.Is this written somewhere?"WDFW's biggest budget problem was simply a growing workload demanded on them by the state legislature (enacting new/enhanced programs), the federal government, and the court system without proper funding for those items, essentially unfunded mandates."They've been directed to use ZBB as part of this budget review process.
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Do you have a link? Or did I miss it?
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:56:28 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/proviso_ssb_5883.pdfIt's in the state budget bill/law that started this whole review.Is this written somewhere?"WDFW's biggest budget problem was simply a growing workload demanded on them by the state legislature (enacting new/enhanced programs), the federal government, and the court system without proper funding for those items, essentially unfunded mandates."They've been directed to use ZBB as part of this budget review process.
Is this a budget shortfall on an increasing budget?
Does WDFW ZBB?
Do you have a link? Or did I miss it?
Subsection d
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 07:13:05 AM
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 07:21:24 AM
My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.
Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.
Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 18, 2018, 07:24:50 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 07:34:29 AM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229288.msg3054836.html#msg3054836
I don't about other actual public discussion/review options where they would have to answer to their customers.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 08:37:19 AM
Is the review and accounting available to the public?This I don't know, but I will be attending the webinar and have a few questions.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on July 18, 2018, 09:57:25 AM
The budget is big enough that fixing the many issues that fire folks up isn't enough. They certainly contribute, but represent a symptom not a cause.
My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.
Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.
Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I don't disagree with you but some things are very difficult to put a number on and I think most end up being complicated to the point it is hard to be specific.
As example I work on trapping issues. Admittedly, small potatoes but I deal with the fur bearer section manager who typically also has at least on additional job. Currently she is also the large carnivore manager so she works on wolves (non-hunting) and cougar and bears and also land owner outreach. Then there is Nuisance wildlife which is someone else that spends time on trapping but also damage caused by other animals ( removal permitting, special trapping, damage payments, Endangered species recovery). Also work with Endangered species recovery people and lastly enforcement which have myriad other duties. To top it off there is money coming in from fees, public grants, private grants as well as license money.
So how much gets spent on trapping and where does that money come from? Not an easy question to answer.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 11:45:35 AM
The budget is big enough that fixing the many issues that fire folks up isn't enough. They certainly contribute, but represent a symptom not a cause.
My guess is that the department is run horribly in part because they don't have control of their accounting. In order to make good management decisions you have to have clear accurate numbers to work with or they mean nothing. Once you go down the path of the numbers being too fuzzy they arnt reliable.
Fuzzy numbers hide inefficiency, mistakes, and misallowcated resources. It also provides cover for what Doublelung and Wacenturian discussed.
Complicating the issue further is likely cashflow issues. $ that comes into the department goes into different buckets to be spent on specific things because of mandates. Well if your accounting is a screwed up and you borrow from differing buckets to make up for cash flow...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
I don't disagree with you but some things are very difficult to put a number on and I think most end up being complicated to the point it is hard to be specific.
As example I work on trapping issues. Admittedly, small potatoes but I deal with the fur bearer section manager who typically also has at least on additional job. Currently she is also the large carnivore manager so she works on wolves (non-hunting) and cougar and bears and also land owner outreach. Then there is Nuisance wildlife which is someone else that spends time on trapping but also damage caused by other animals ( removal permitting, special trapping, damage payments, Endangered species recovery). Also work with Endangered species recovery people and lastly enforcement which have myriad other duties. To top it off there is money coming in from fees, public grants, private grants as well as license money.
So how much gets spent on trapping and where does that money come from? Not an easy question to answer.
It is possible to answer it, but not if your accounting is a mess. Accounting has to be acurate and reflective of what the $ is actually doing.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 18, 2018, 11:49:34 AM
Recreational fishers produce three-fourths of the fishing related jobs in Washington. Recreational fishing creates over 11 times more economic value for the state than do commercial fisheries. All this while commercial fisheries harvest far more of the finite resource than recreational fisheries do. Someone is going to cry foul on the above, so here's the independent economic study: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464
If WDFW wants recreational folks to foot the bill, they need to prioritize the resource accordingly and give far more of the pie to recreational fishers. If the commercials still want the bulk of the pie, they should pay the bulk of cost.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 12:54:57 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 03:14:11 PM
This may not get agreed with and for good reason maybe but I feel that it is time to let the hunting and fishing groups that most of us have joined and pay annual dues and donations to,that if they don't start fighting harder and filing more suits against this state then we no longer will pay dues or give donations.The anti hunting and fishing environment does not belong in the hunting and fishing arena. :twocents:Here's the problem with your statement. You make it sound as if DFW is the Dept of Fishing and Wildlife Hunting, and not the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW does not cater solely to fishermen and hunters, their job is not to make it so Jonny can get a big salmon or monster buck every year. Their job is to preserve, manage, etc the fish/wildlife in the state, and if fishing/hunting can occur than great. Here is the mandate to WDFW as written in law:
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may (note it is is MAY not SHALL) authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
------------
If we want WDFW to essentially be the Dept of Fishing & Wildlife Hunting then we better be ready to fully fund the department, and not just 30ish percent of it like we currently do with our license fees, PR funds, etc.
WDFW has more to manage then simply hunting and fishing interests, things like wildlife control (the bear running through the elementary school playground), the beaver blocking a creek, making sure shellfish aren't being harvested from the sewer pumpstation and sold in the market the next day, etc. are all reasons why WDFW gets general fund funding. Those things impact all citizens of WA. Now in comparison the state legislature sees State Parks as simply a user based agency, and that is the reason why the legislature would like to see State Parks get 0 general fund money.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 03:36:26 PM
Agreed,They are not hired to be for the hunters and the fisherman.They also are not hired to cater to the antis of which any honest hunter in here would say that the upper management is doing that very thing.This may not get agreed with and for good reason maybe but I feel that it is time to let the hunting and fishing groups that most of us have joined and pay annual dues and donations to,that if they don't start fighting harder and filing more suits against this state then we no longer will pay dues or give donations.The anti hunting and fishing environment does not belong in the hunting and fishing arena. :twocents:Here's the problem with your statement. You make it sound as if DFW is the Dept of Fishing and Wildlife Hunting, and not the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. WDFW does not cater solely to fishermen and hunters, their job is not to make it so Jonny can get a big salmon or monster buck every year. Their job is to preserve, manage, etc the fish/wildlife in the state, and if fishing/hunting can occur than great. Here is the mandate to WDFW as written in law:
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may (note it is is MAY not SHALL) authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
------------
If we want WDFW to essentially be the Dept of Fishing & Wildlife Hunting then we better be ready to fully fund the department, and not just 30ish percent of it like we currently do with our license fees, PR funds, etc.
WDFW has more to manage then simply hunting and fishing interests, things like wildlife control (the bear running through the elementary school playground), the beaver blocking a creek, making sure shellfish aren't being harvested from the sewer pumpstation and sold in the market the next day, etc. are all reasons why WDFW gets general fund funding. Those things impact all citizens of WA. Now in comparison the state legislature sees State Parks as simply a user based agency, and that is the reason why the legislature would like to see State Parks get 0 general fund money.
They also seem to be falling short on the enhance and improve part.
Post by: Humptulips on July 18, 2018, 04:19:03 PM
DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?And those things are funded by the general fund, not the wildlife fund.
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Well no, some are and some aren't. Endangered species recovery for instance is a mix and if you get into the etc part you would find more.
Not the point though, if what we are being told is correct it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. The Legislature has a responsibility to cough up for a portion.
Post by: buglebrush on July 18, 2018, 04:20:17 PM
Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 04:30:49 PM
Nobody said it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. That's why WDFW is proposing two-thirds of the proposed changes come from general fund increases via sales tax hikes, lodging tax, etc. The remaining third will be from the wildlife fund.Well no, some are and some aren't. Endangered species recovery for instance is a mix and if you get into the etc part you would find more.DFW does stuff like Hydraulic Permit work, seafood inspection, endangered species rehabilitation on things we will never get to hunt like pond turtles etc. Maybe worthwhile things and maybe DFW is the proper agency to oversee them but who should pay?And those things are funded by the general fund, not the wildlife fund.
Some of the stuff they do benefits the General Public more so then just hunters and fisherman. The Legislature needs to pony up for those things or not expect them to get done.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Not the point though, if what we are being told is correct it will all come out of the wildlife fund in the future. The Legislature has a responsibility to cough up for a portion.
Post by: winshooter88 on July 18, 2018, 04:37:26 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 04:38:50 PM
"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"I'm not an apologist for WDFW, I've called them out many times. But I am a realist, which many aren't. Everybody wants every chinook to be 50 pounds with guaranteed limits everyday on every river, guarantee your going to get a 400 class bull every year etc and if they don't then it's WDFWs fault.
Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?
The "conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource" is all up to each individuals view. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. I know people who think hunting in WA is amazing because not many states have OTC buck and bull tags, heck some states if you don't draw then you don't hunt. Then you have those who think hunting in WA sucks. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. Everybody is their own expert.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 04:39:19 PM
BigTex, The thing about the mandated items in the RCW is that they can be changed at any time by the liberals in the legislature. It appears that the last time was in 2000.As with any other law in any state or the country...
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 04:49:59 PM
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2018, 05:16:26 PM
"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"I'm not an apologist for WDFW, I've called them out many times. But I am a realist, which many aren't. Everybody wants every chinook to be 50 pounds with guaranteed limits everyday on every river, guarantee your going to get a 400 class bull every year etc and if they don't then it's WDFWs fault.
Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?
The "conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource" is all up to each individuals view. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. I know people who think hunting in WA is amazing because not many states have OTC buck and bull tags, heck some states if you don't draw then you don't hunt. Then you have those who think hunting in WA sucks. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. Everybody is their own expert.
I feel that our quality of our hunting and fishing opportunity is swirling down the toilet bowl and has been for many years. We have less chance at quality hunt draws, less chances of landing OIL tags, heavily restricted fishing rules and it's getting worse not better.
Now I see a proposed fee increase that's going to do nothing but fund the excesses in Olympia.
Nothing in this fee increase is going to improve hunting or fishing, it'll only feed the bloated bureaucracy that churns out rule after rule after rule making all outdoors people miserable at trying to keep up with it all.
It's a bit shallow to suggest that everyone expects a 400 class bull or 50 lb Chinook.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:53:54 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on July 18, 2018, 06:21:34 PM
Post by: hunter399 on July 18, 2018, 06:24:10 PM
Until we get a Director who has the courage to cut top down rather than let self protecting HQ managers cut bottom up, these continued budget problems are like the Energizer Bunny. Just keeps going. It's pretty much the field positions that actually do something that end up getting the axe, generally speaking. Always has been result of WDFW's budget process. We all know what has happened the past 20-30 years to the resource and opportunity under this approach. Raising user fees and then continuing down the road of poor management is so predictable.+1
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:30:56 PM
Another +1Until we get a Director who has the courage to cut top down rather than let self protecting HQ managers cut bottom up, these continued budget problems are like the Energizer Bunny. Just keeps going. It's pretty much the field positions that actually do something that end up getting the axe, generally speaking. Always has been result of WDFW's budget process. We all know what has happened the past 20-30 years to the resource and opportunity under this approach. Raising user fees and then continuing down the road of poor management is so predictable.+1
Post by: Alpine Mojo on July 18, 2018, 07:16:52 PM
a proposed fee increase that's going to do nothing but fund the excesses in Olympia.
Nothing in this fee increase is going to improve hunting or fishing, it'll only feed the bloated bureaucracy that churns out rule after rule after rule making all outdoors people miserable at trying to keep up with it all.
And now you know where the real problem is for the working man, and why people are angry.
Post by: Man Tracker on July 18, 2018, 09:20:22 PM
IMO, the Director and Commission need to prioritize and decide what DFW is going to look like in the future as well as in the present. There are way too many unfunded mandates. DFW needs to mend many relationships with the legislature. Not sure they are trusted to tell the truth. Maybe they can ask that unfunded mandates get a boost of General Fund monies and let the dedicated Wildlife Fund be used for those core activities that are identified as priorities.
I know, we each have our own ideas as to what should be a priority. No one said this will be an easy process.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 09:38:59 PM
"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"That's not fair to paint him that way. He gives you and me an onsite as to how the system works. You and I Dont speak the language and BT does. Most of the time he doesn't give his own opinion. Unless you want to wander around dead dumb and blind you had better think about who is going to help you navigate the fight!
Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?
Grrr
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Tbar on July 18, 2018, 09:51:07 PM
Please don't think that Zero Based Budgeting is the total answer. It was implemented in the "old" Game Dept. back in the 80's or early 90's during another budget crisis. Maybe WaCenturian can remember. But it went away. Maybe DFW is ready to try it again, but I question their ability to implement and stick with it, despite what the legislature has mandated. One of the issues will be, the people making the decisions on what programs are important and need to retain funding are mostly in Olympia. Many have little or no field experience.Not sure what they want the department to look like but it sure looks like the writing is on the wall with their senior management team they have in place.
IMO, the Director and Commission need to prioritize and decide what DFW is going to look like in the future as well as in the present. There are way too many unfunded mandates. DFW needs to mend many relationships with the legislature. Not sure they are trusted to tell the truth. Maybe they can ask that unfunded mandates get a boost of General Fund monies and let the dedicated Wildlife Fund be used for those core activities that are identified as priorities.
I know, we each have our own ideas as to what should be a priority. No one said this will be an easy process.
Post by: huntnphool on July 18, 2018, 11:41:22 PM
"The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource"I'm not an apologist for WDFW, I've called them out many times. But I am a realist, which many aren't. Everybody wants every chinook to be 50 pounds with guaranteed limits everyday on every river, guarantee your going to get a 400 class bull every year etc and if they don't then it's WDFWs fault.
Big Tex, I know you are an apologist for WDFW, but can you really say they are doing this when their predator management is aimed at the reduction, not conservation, of wildlife?
The "conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource" is all up to each individuals view. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. I know people who think hunting in WA is amazing because not many states have OTC buck and bull tags, heck some states if you don't draw then you don't hunt. Then you have those who think hunting in WA sucks. Who's right and who's wrong, who knows. Everybody is their own expert.
I feel that our quality of our hunting and fishing opportunity is swirling down the toilet bowl and has been for many years. We have less chance at quality hunt draws, less chances of landing OIL tags, heavily restricted fishing rules and it's getting worse not better.
Now I see a proposed fee increase that's going to do nothing but fund the excesses in Olympia.
Nothing in this fee increase is going to improve hunting or fishing, it'll only feed the bloated bureaucracy that churns out rule after rule after rule making all outdoors people miserable at trying to keep up with it all.
It's a bit shallow to suggest that everyone expects a 400 class bull or 50 lb Chinook.
+1
Post by: huntnphool on July 18, 2018, 11:42:48 PM
Until we get a Director who has the courage to cut top down rather than let self protecting HQ managers cut bottom up, these continued budget problems are like the Energizer Bunny. Just keeps going. It's pretty much the field positions that actually do something that end up getting the axe, generally speaking. Always has been result of WDFW's budget process. We all know what has happened the past 20-30 years to the resource and opportunity under this approach. Raising user fees and then continuing down the road of poor management is so predictable.
Well said!