Originally Posted By: Backtrollin


MPM, you wrote "I don't know much about WFC, but the reasons you've given to criticize them don't seem like particularly good reasons to me."
Let me make a few points for you:
1. 1mil in payroll to manage 2mil in projects. In the business world that is a helluva margin.
2. Suing the state with little to no factual data, thus getting the ball rolling on a technicality. Waste of taxpayer money.
3. I have lived in the Snoqualmie Valley for 35 years and the locals despise the WFC. Why? They NEVER offer to help the farmer. They drive around, hide, and call King County to report a violation.

If these guys really cared, they would have an outstanding relationship with landowners, fix numerous small problems and attack the large problems as the grants come in. They are cowards. If you want to see the valley from a local perspective and fully understand why they are hated PM me and I will take you for a tour. I will show you where cut banks are falling in on spawning beds on state land, i will show you where smolt get stranded in fields after a flood because the farmer cant clean a ditch, I will show you where the lack of riparian habitat could be fixed.

The fact is small projects don't cover their payroll. Relationships don't matter to them and worst of all, they are spending grant money doing it.


I don't understand why you find the payroll-to-projects ratio so damning. If it were a charity, and a 1/3 of donations went to payroll, that would be bad. But in their case, I don't think it's reasonable to measure the good they do in the amount of money spent on a project. A $200,000 project could potentially have a benefit on fisheries from $0 to $20 million.

If you think violating the ESA is a "technicality", then we'll just have to disagree on that.

I agree that it would be beneficial for any organization hoping to improve landowner practices to have a good relationship with the landowners. However, I'm hesitant to form an opinion based solely on the landowners' side of the story.