Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 06:51:05 AM
At the start of the 2010 Legislative session WDFW was expected to take another reduction in the $1 million dollar (or so) range. The mandate from the Office of the Governor was manageable. The most recent action by the Senate in its version of the budget has created a serious situation for the department as it calls for a little more then $6 million in additional cuts. Attached is a summary of the impact of these proposed cuts and the impacts upon the agency.
Comparison of House and Senate cuts: http://washingtonwolf.info/pdf/Fish_and_Wildlife_2010_Budget_Talking_Points.pdf (http://washingtonwolf.info/pdf/Fish_and_Wildlife_2010_Budget_Talking_Points.pdf)
What are your feelings?
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 11:25:07 AM
Post by: whacker1 on March 03, 2010, 11:28:44 AM
Post by: Kain on March 03, 2010, 11:30:37 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 11:39:31 AM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 03, 2010, 12:02:19 PM
I agree with both of you, whacker and Kain. I'm afraid it will spell out in the end as a loss to wardens, hatcheries, core services, etc. as you have said.
I'm afraid your right bearpaw. The last round of budget cuts was a bottom up approach. Instead of whacking off some of the fluff on the top. I imagine they are going to once again keep the managers and cut the worker bee's. I have to wonder why we need a director of everything today? It used to be a director, assistant director, 1 guy in charge of Fish and 1 for Game. Now you have a furbearar, elk, deer, predator, wolf, salmon recovery, fish, cougar, bear, etc etc etc who are all based in Oly. Now they are making a climate change manager? My brother is a worker bee for the state, he will be lucky to survive this round of cuts. Even though he works at 3 hatcheries now since the last round of cuts, because they do not have the number of worker bee's to cover each hatchery.
Shootmoore
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 12:51:01 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 05:27:59 PM
Post by: Kain on March 03, 2010, 06:08:56 PM
Since the legislature is looking over these cuts, would it do any good to ask the legislators to force the cuts at the top?
Thats a good idea. It cant hurt thats for sure.
The "core" functions of the department need to be defined and they should be told that anything that does not fall in one of those should be reviewed and then justified before funding. They need to look into partnering and sharing data with neighboring states and splitting the costs or just using the data from others states when they can. Subbing out some functions to private companies should also be looked at.
Post by: Curly on March 03, 2010, 06:17:10 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 03, 2010, 06:20:07 PM
I wonder what the wolf budget is? :dunno: They should get rid of anything to do with helping wolves.
I believe they were "guessing" around 700-900 thousand.
Shootmoore
Post by: whacker1 on March 03, 2010, 06:21:31 PM
I don't know if this information is accurate or not, but I know that there isn't anyone in these roles in any of state government that is going to make many cuts to upper and middle management in order to retain the quality of service. I am pretty sure tha the governor still has her 30 + aids and hasn't eliminated any of those positions.
Post by: roadhuntking on March 03, 2010, 06:28:57 PM
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/employment/jobs/1316_WMS_030910.pdf (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/employment/jobs/1316_WMS_030910.pdf)
Post by: whacker1 on March 03, 2010, 06:33:55 PM
We could potentially ask these questions of the director and the commission as to why there haven't been any middle management or upper management reductions via the last few budget cuts? I don't know what else to try. the legislature sure as hell isn't going to do it.
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2010, 06:58:58 PM
I agree with both of you, whacker and Kain. I'm afraid it will spell out in the end as a loss to wardens, hatcheries, core services, etc. as you have said.
Actually as the current budget proposal is written there is no cut to WDFW enforcement.
Here is the current proposed budget in a easier to understand format:
http://fiscal.wa.gov/FRViewer.aspx?Rpt=Operating+Budget+Agency+Detail (http://fiscal.wa.gov/FRViewer.aspx?Rpt=Operating+Budget+Agency+Detail)
Just select "Fish and Wildlife" under the agency area
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2010, 07:03:52 PM
Since the legislature is looking over these cuts, would it do any good to ask the legislators to force the cuts at the top?
Legislators have no authority or power to determine which positions are cut. For example they could cut the habitat program by 10%, they dont care if you fire the #2 position in the habitat program or the bottom 10, they just care that 10% is cut.
Post by: Axle on March 03, 2010, 07:10:28 PM
We will start by getting rid of all the wolves and most of the cougars. Then we will see some serious hunting going on in this state. The kind of hunting that brings other hunters from other states.
I say - Bearpaw for president!!!!! Then we can sit around the campfire eating elk burgers and chant things like - four more beers! - four more beers! - four more beers!
Post by: Special T on March 03, 2010, 07:23:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 07:42:54 PM
Bearpaw, I say cut the whole damn budjet 100 percent and let HunWa manage the critters.
We will start by getting rid of all the wolves and most of the cougars. Then we will see some serious hunting going on in this state. The kind of hunting that brings other hunters from other states.
I say - Bearpaw for president!!!!! Then we can sit around the campfire eating elk burgers and chant things like - four more beers! - four more beers! - four more beers!
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Better go with whacker, his profession may not be as controversial... :chuckle:
On a more serious note, you guys are saying the legislature has little control over designating funds, are you sure about that?
Post by: mulehunter on March 03, 2010, 07:48:21 PM
Bearpaw, I say cut the whole damn budjet 100 percent and let HunWa manage the critters.
We will start by getting RID of all the wolves . :bash:
I say - Bearpaw for president!!!!! Then we can sit around the campfire eating elk burgers and chant things like - four more beers! - four more beers! - four more beers!
:yeah:
Mulehunter :party1:
Post by: bigtex on March 03, 2010, 07:53:04 PM
Bearpaw, I say cut the whole damn budjet 100 percent and let HunWa manage the critters.
We will start by getting rid of all the wolves and most of the cougars. Then we will see some serious hunting going on in this state. The kind of hunting that brings other hunters from other states.
I say - Bearpaw for president!!!!! Then we can sit around the campfire eating elk burgers and chant things like - four more beers! - four more beers! - four more beers!
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Better go with whacker, his profession may not be as controversial... :chuckle:
On a more serious note, you guys are saying the legislature has little control over designating funds, are you sure about that?
No, we are saying the legislature has little control in how agencies conduct their budget cuts. The legislature doesn’t control over what positions get eliminated, agencies do that. Like I posted, the legislature could say cut enforcement by X amount of money, they do not say cut X amount of field officers. So WDFW has to determine do they just cut field officers, do they cut field supervisors, or do they cut positions at HQ. The legislature doesn’t care which position is cut, they only care that the funding is cut.
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:01:33 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 08:08:36 PM
They're hiring a Deputy Asst. Director.
http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/employment/jobs/1316_WMS_030910.pdf (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/employment/jobs/1316_WMS_030910.pdf)
Well they could start here. This job basically is a position whose function it is to coordinate headquarters wildlife management business with that of the six regions. In other words someone to act on behalf of the Wildlife Management Assistant Director in communicating department business with regional staff....regional wildlife program managers. Which by the way accounts for six more top paying, don't tell me how to run my region type attitude jobs, that are not needed. See how easy these budget cuts can be......just probably saved 20+ field jobs with those cuts dollar wise.
Getting back to the Deputy Assistant Director job......that's what the damn Assistant Director for Wildlife is paid to do.......are you starting to see the waste at the top? Every high end job in WDFW has assistants who get paid big dollars to do part of their supervisors job. It's true......what ever happen to being accountable and getting paid to produce and make decisions? Under the current setup....way too many chiefs to place blame...it just rolls downhill to field positions.
Sorry to tell you folks but this is what WDFW has become in the past 20 years............. a giant bowel like creature needing a good colonic!
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 08:13:34 PM
Bearpaw, I say cut the whole damn budjet 100 percent and let HunWa manage the critters.
We will start by getting rid of all the wolves and most of the cougars. Then we will see some serious hunting going on in this state. The kind of hunting that brings other hunters from other states.
I say - Bearpaw for president!!!!! Then we can sit around the campfire eating elk burgers and chant things like - four more beers! - four more beers! - four more beers!
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Better go with whacker, his profession may not be as controversial... :chuckle:
On a more serious note, you guys are saying the legislature has little control over designating funds, are you sure about that?
No, we are saying the legislature has little control in how agencies conduct their budget cuts. The legislature doesn’t control over what positions get eliminated, agencies do that. Like I posted, the legislature could say cut enforcement by X amount of money, they do not say cut X amount of field officers. So WDFW has to determine do they just cut field officers, do they cut field supervisors, or do they cut positions at HQ. The legislature doesn’t care which position is cut, they only care that the funding is cut.
That's where the Commission in my opinion is dropping the ball. The Commission is the Director's boss. They can basically tell him what is needed to be cut or not cut........they too just don't have the knowledge or you know what's to do it. If the Director doesn't do it......they can fire him....that simple.
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 08:22:53 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:29:46 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 08:31:52 PM
I know that sounds too simple, but just think on it for awhile. Every time they face cuts they make excuses that are not even true. The things they say are so critical as far as justifying the retention of top administrative type jobs and what they do is a shell game....they really don't do what they say, except in theory, sitting in countless pat themselves on the back worthless meetings.
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:36:52 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 08:38:15 PM
I wonder if a bag of letters could get through to the commission? :dunno:
Drop them off in person at the next meeting. Isn't it coming up, March 12th I think...
Post by: Wacenturion on March 03, 2010, 08:41:29 PM
Wacenturion, if I am reading correctly between the lines, the Commission needs to recieve a large bag of letters requesting cuts in current upper level management and elimination of this plan to hire even more managers.
As I mentioned....the Director reports to and serves at the pleasure of the Fish and Wildlife Commission. They hire and fire the Director, one of their biggest responsibilities. To answer your between the lines.............that's the likely soft spot in the armour. But with that being said, I don't see them as being the types to play hardball...........but you never know.
Too bad we don't have a Director who would be aggressive in reshaping that agency and convincing the Commission it the right thing to do with their concurrence.
Post by: Special T on March 03, 2010, 08:42:30 PM
Post by: Al Bundy on March 03, 2010, 08:45:47 PM
http://lbloom.net/dfw09.html (http://lbloom.net/dfw09.html)
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 09:00:14 PM
I know there are lots of feelings about this issue but a decent way to release people would need to be used. Perhaps the biggest single thing is to stop creating these new positions, or rearrange people into them so that numbers of management do not increase. :twocents: