I have to go along with the general thread that John Q posted. I'm sure there are folks getting ready to retire or who could be offered an early out in the middle and upper levels of the agency. Not filling those positions or having folks become more of a generalist rather than a specialist would help. As John Q has outlined, administrative growth hasn't been subject of much cutting over the past couple of years.

I generally understand the budget issues facing the agency and the state. I'll argue that WDFW is one of the few state agencies that makes money for the state. Cuts to the WDFW budget impact not only the agency but lots of other businesses that are dependent on folks who enjoy our natural resources. I don't know how to measure the loss of tax revenues and business losses as seasons are reduced/re-structured, or eliminated, but I'm sure it is there. Continued cuts to the agency have effects that our politicos can't seem to grasp. I hope they will take the time to do some serious work on the state budget this year and not spend time pushing penny ante bills that take up their time.

At a minimum, I don't think the LE section should be taking any hit on their share of general fund monies and I have mixed feelings about cuts from the wildlife fund. In a real sense, they are the front line for the agency and the group the public has most contact with - good or bad. Additionally, they provide support/mutual aid for other local, county, state, and federal agencies. Reducing LE funding, both operational (fuel, vehicles, travel, etc) and FTEs, reduces their effectiveness and presence for their primary job of resource protection. I'd also like to see the legislature take a serious look at how the state agencies manipulate their budgets and consider a zero base budget system. Within the WDFW and for most other agencies, there is a system where anywhere from 15% to 60% and more of a fund is skimmed off the top for "indirect costs". In the case of WDFW, that money goes to run administrative support sections. In another case, agencies are charged $20+ per employee per month to support IT services whether the employee has computer access or not.

I'd like to see the current vacant (7, I think) positions filled and I'd like to see the field force brought back up to pre-merger levels. It doesn't have to be done in a year, but should be accomplished within 5 years. That kind of growth would still be behind the needs, but it would be a start. In round figures, there is approximately one field officer for every 475 square miles, not counting the marine waters. FLSA restricts their work hours to about 171 hours/28 day work period. Add in vacation, sick leave, time for court cases, travel time to the edges of their patrol area or to work other areas as needed, time spent on training, equipment maintenance, and administrative duties and it is easy to understand why seeing a field officer can be a rare occurence.

With few exceptions, it has been my experience that LE is often the bastard calf of a fish and wildlife agency. Most staff and administrators don't have a clue what the field officer does nor how many times during the day when the officer has to shift from one responsibility to respond to something else that someone in the regional or headquarters office thinks has a higher priority. In some cases, that is true. In others, the officer now might have to travel for a couple of hours leaving a project half done only to have to go back and finish it some other time. LE is a necessary evil to many on staff and they'd just as soon have them out of sight and out of mind 'cause the work they do creates issues. In many cases, those issues are a result of poor planning and regulation development by other sections in the agency, but the officer is expected to respond and act accordingly. Something that looks good on paper doesn't necessarily translate to common sense activities in the field. The officer is damned if s/he does and damned if s/he doesn't.

It may be comparing apples and oranges, but the state patrol doesn't seem to be losing many officers. They have detachment offices and support staff. They get general fund support and I suspect they'll see some cuts. I can not and will not support any move that might be WDFW LE under the WSP. They are totally different agencies with very different missions. I would however like to see adequate funding for WDFW LE positions be recognized as a public responsibility by the WA Legislature.

That's enough of a rant for tonight. Bottomline is that I think kingdoms, principalities, and fiefdoms have been built within the agency and there is little or no interest in changing things 'cause that's the way its been done. The resource and the users end up losing.