An Open Dialogue With WDFW Wolf Plan Consultant Francine Madden

[jmscon]

Maybe a cordial conversation with her could bring voices to the table with the group that otherwise would fall on deaf ears. If she is a true moderator than she will bring up these conversations of concerns with the group. If it’s just a bunch of rants and berating than I’m sure it will follow the current course. I’m sure all of the people on these boards have gotten thousands of emails from hunters and cattlemen that have been anything but cordial.

If given an opportunity and not even give it a chance, how does anyone expect a change?

[pianoman9701]

Her role is the mediator, For lack of a term. Her job is to try and fix a problem that was made by not only anti hunting groups, but a department that is too spineless to attempted addressing the issue. Since her organization is stacked with groups not friendly to sportsmen it is hard to take her statements at face value.

For the sake of argument i will assume her motives are sincere, since it is her job to bring 2 opposing sides of the issue together.

1st she has been brought in to meditate AFTER sportsmen have been pushed back to thier own 20 yard line (forgive the football references)  it is near impossible for sportsmen  to feel good about any outcome unless we end back at the 50 yard line. IF it had happened from day one we may be able to "compromise" and feel ok about the solution.  I'm not sure there is much recovery from this as it is much easier to build a sucessful partnership from scratch. Often times trying to resolve the situation after wounds have been inflicted requires infinitely more work/resources. An ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure.

2 I don't Fault her for not engaging online. I do however find it troubling that she doesn't appear to take her organizations shortcoming and the shortcomings of the "wolf stakeholder group" seriously.

How can sportsmen take the WDFW and her organization seriously when representation is so stacked against sportsmen? She acknowledges sportsmen are important. Unfortunately it does not appear  important enough to display that importance in representation. The disperportionate financial load is being placed on sportsmen which seems obvious some the WDFW is footing the Bill which is at least half funded by sportsmen.


I'm confounded that this disproportionate contribution is ignored. SHE is here because the WDFW doesn't belive that, YET is here to convince us sportsmen other wise.

I agree with her 100% that relationships and trust is what helps parties work through problems.  To me this is the root of the problem especially on this issue.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

She is purely there to moderate/facilitate an advisory committee which only has as much say with regards to wolves as the Commission, Director, and Governor give them. Her views are of no concern or consequence. She's a neutral party. This is why a dialogue with her, while maybe feeling good, has zero potential for any positive effect or outcome.

If not dialogue with her then who do you think the dialogue should be started with to have a positive effect and outcome?

The Commission, the Wildlife director, the WDFW Director, and the Governor. And they're not going to listen to a bunch of gun-toting, cattle raising, wildlife concerned citizens who think it's time to give the NE some relief and delist. We don't donate to Inslee but we know who does.

You have all the right players there but do you understand that there is a chain of command? You can't just go to the Governor and expect that your going to get what you want.

Are you being rhetorical? Those are simply the people making the decisions about wolves. I actually don't even think that Mr. Pamplin's views have very much sway. The lower down "chain-of-command" is where the smoke blowing starts. They think they have a say. And make no mistake; I won't be getting what I want.

[Special T]

IMO the only Thing useful of a dialogue with her is so that she can have a better understanding of sportsmen. It can be used both for our benifit And against us.

I would liken a discussion with a focus group. Normally they are used to gain insight to a group of people. They are not used for scientific purposes but to obtain a general insight. As a group we would have no control over how that info is used.

My off the cuff assessment is that Her group is acting very similar to a Marketing Firm. I have personally been part of focus groups where the information gleaned was used to make a better sales pitch for a predetermined outcome. Unfortunately in the business world this mostly the case. Is it done with the altruistic motives of discovery and understanding? Sure but it is certainly in the minority.

Should we participate? Maybe. I'm inclined to agree with Pman on his assessment.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

Maybe a cordial conversation with her could bring voices to the table with the group that otherwise would fall on deaf ears. If she is a true moderator than she will bring up these conversations of concerns with the group. If it’s just a bunch of rants and berating than I’m sure it will follow the current course. I’m sure all of the people on these boards have gotten thousands of emails from hunters and cattlemen that have been anything but cordial.

If given an opportunity and not even give it a chance, how does anyone expect a change?

That's just not her job as the coordinator. She doesn't bring voices to the table. She gets the voices already at the table to work together. That's what they hired her to do. I'm not making a statement about what I think of her - I have no opinion about her. And I'm not saying that a hunter's/sportsman's voice at the table wouldn't be a good thing

[Southpole]

tagging along

[JimmyHoffa]

WDFW wants cattlemen and hunters to accept the wolves, but didn't employ any types of mediation to try to get other groups around the state to accept hound hunting, bear baiting, trapping...doesn't seem interested in any acceptance with co managers either.

[pianoman9701]

WDFW wants cattlemen and hunters to accept the wolves, but didn't employ any types of mediation to try to get other groups around the state to accept hound hunting, bear baiting, trapping...doesn't seem interested in any acceptance with co managers either.

What is the common denominator between the referendum on bait and hounds and the outrageous wolf plan? It should be fairly obvious. 

[andersonjk4]

Pman may be right and in this particular case, or future work by HWCC, that they are not in the business of changing peoples mind.  But if hunters could get on that list of the committee members for their organization would that not be beneficial for us?  Even if the job of the organization is not to directly influence the outcomes of the projects for which they are hired, I don't believe you can have an active role in something and not influence it a little.  And having POSITIVE hunting representative at a table with all of those players listed on their committees couldn't hurt.  It would definitely be a start.   

[pianoman9701]

Getting a hunter on the WAG could be good. It wouldn't hurt, certainly.

And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.

[Curly]

I wonder if she is billing the state of WA $800/hr for every email she is answering?  My guess would be yes...........
 

[jackelope]

Getting a hunter on the WAG could be good. It wouldn't hurt, certainly.

And incidentally, I think it's great that you wrote her. Thanks for being proactive for our wildlife. That's huge.

There are currently, at a minimum, 2 hunters that I know of sitting on the WAG.

[pianoman9701]

I wonder if she is billing the state of WA $800/hr for every email she is answering?  My guess would be yes...........
 

Likely. I would.

[Curly]

My biggest complaint by far about the wolf consultant is the fee that the state is paying.  I find it hard to believe that they can't find someone else for one tenth the cost to provide her services. 

They should save their money for when they need to pay for wolf damages and/or have to pay for killing of a pack.  That just seems like a ton of money that has no real benefit........(other than for the state to say "see we spent X amount of $ trying to get everybody to get along". 

It most likely is never going to do a bit of good to have a "wolf plan consultant", but if they insist on having one they could at least find someone for way cheaper.

[Special T]

One of our club members sat of the Wolf Advisory Group. He talked about how frustrating it was to sit on that group. It was before the consultant. He discussed how difficult it was to try and get the non sporting groups to comprehend what sportsmen were dealing with. Or try and build some understanding.

Being the token sportsmen, or greatly outnumbered on an advisory panel allows the Overton Window to shift with ease. I almost compare it to being the lone Republican or Democrat in a household.  You either need to be hypervigilant and outspoken to maintain you values or slide to the opposing side. Numbers determine the direction of the movement. It is a rare thing for some one in the Minorty to influence a group of greater numbers. It's just human nature.

If there was a discussion I'd be more interested in what questions she asks us because it would show what the areas of concern are.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[mfswallace]

Response from Francine Madden:

Please also accept my apologies on all accounts. Especially for any unintended negative impacts in your community. I would also like to ask your advice: As my organization enters it's final year of engagement on the wolf issue, do you have any suggestions or recommendations for me on how to repair any damage in the short term or engage with the hunting community, especially as we enter into a discussion about post-recovery planning? Is there anything I can do in my work in WA to rebuild the trust in the short term, recognizing that the recruitment process we are currently engaged in to get back to our board balance will likely extend beyond our WA timeline. I have both ears open if you have any suggestions for me.

Thank you, Jake. I wish you and yours a happy new year!
Francine

Immediate action should be taken to rewrite the ludicrous wolf recovery plan including after recovery hunting management allowances!!!!! Then transplant the necessary packs to the west side to start the hunting management!!