Seems a rather lopsided vote, so far.

I trust that DFW has zero clue what their doing.

They’re


But yes, you are correct.

Well, that's true Stam. Fortunately for WDFW, logic is of no concern.

Neither is science...

But they do work hard at politics.

It’s interesting that there are a lot more “views” than “votes”. Wonder what that means?

Well, maybe the non-voting viewers read the question and found it sort of silly. I did.

How many people who are voting even know what WDFW is charged with doing? I mean, part of those folk's jobs involve facilitating non-tribal commercial fishing seasons. Even within the "recreational" side, they have to prioritize among folks with different perspectives. So when I think about whether WDFW is acting "fairly" that certainly wouldn't be the same as saying they are "supporting me" or "treating my interests as a sportsman as paramount at all times". If that's what people mean by "fair" then it's sort of a rigged question.

Why not ask this: Has WDFW ever directly lied to you? For me, the answer is no. If the answer is yes for some of you, what was the circumstance?

Or how about this: When you took the time to better understand the rationale or reasoning behind a WDFW/Commission decision that you disagreed with, were you able to talk with an appropriate person (via phone or email) at WDFW? Were they honest with you? I've always found the right person, and while personalities vary, I've always received a candid explanation. Perhaps others have had trouble getting answers, and that would be an area for improvement.

Maybe the best question is, what do you expect from WDFW? I expect them to be honest and reasonably accessible. I expect them to prioritize non-tribal opportunity over tribal harvest. I expect them to be competent. There have been some issues with later, but that seems different than "fair".

Well said and good points.

The object of the very general questioned poll is to get a perception opinion. It is after all, not a scientific poll, and is certainly not a poll to a specifically opinionated demographic. It is intended to get "a feel" for how the regular sports angler perceives the fair treatment to the community.

You are correct, there are many specifics involved in the formation of a perception. You are also correct that some can be attributed to either lack of communication or lack of investigation. However, the underlying cause(s) and possible remedies do not discount the results.

The question may appear "silly" to some. However, at face value the perception that it indicates is very serious indeed.

Someone's drinkin' the kool-aid over there!

127 NO or MOSTLY NO to 8 YES or MOSTLY YES.... lol

The polls are in and over 90% of folks do not trust the Department. At least folks here... I suspect you would find the same margin from the fishing community at large.

Sad indeed.

Has a WDFW manager ever lied to me personally? Yes; and I will give you the supporting scenario.

During the introductions for what was the first public hearing of the WDFW's proposed Rockfish Recovery Plan he said that if there were any questions that could not be answered during that meeting he would research and provide a response. I specifically challenged their stated poundage of food consumed by seals in P.S. annually (5MM#) which, in significant part, led to an assessment in the plan that such impact on the food chain would have a Minimum risk to rockfish recovery. Using their own included information (# of seals, average poundage, and daily consumption requirements/#) my calculation was 27MM pounds consumed/year; a significant difference! After the meeting that individual took my name and email (writing them in his notebook) and promised to research and respond. I am still waiting......

And they continued to utilize that erroneous 5MM# figure in subsequent public hearings. After all the meetings were conducted their final plan did provide the correct poundage and increased the adverse impact to Moderate validating my calculations. So not only did he lie to me by not getting back to me as promised he continued to present what he knew to be significantly erroneous data to the public during the subsequent public meetings. That was simply dishonest.

Another example of distorting the facts occurred during the hearings on the new crab management plan. The Shellfish manager presented a graph showing the value of the recreational fishery over a period of years using the per trip value established by the Department's contracted study but did not adjust for CPI. But when it came to the graph showing the value of the non-tribal commercial fishery over the same years those earlier years were adjusted to the current year using CPI. This effectively resulted in presenting an erroneous comparison of values for those two fisheries. Despite having this pointed out to him on more than one occasion he continued to present it to include to the Commission and the Senate Rec and Natural Resources committee although at that Senate hearing then Director Anderson acknowledged the disparate data. Guess it was okay to mislead the Commission but not the Senate??

So, again, yes to both questions - and those are not the only occurrences.

Just trying to narrow the venting, into something more productive. Is WDFW untrustworthy/unfair or are they too often incompetent/overmatched? We can all easily site multiple examples of apparent WDFW incompetence or lack or effort. I suspect it's quite a bit harder to generate a list of examples of untrustworthy or dishonest conduct. I tend not to call people untrustworthy if my concern is their lack of skill or diligence.

Ask Rivrguy about they used, and continue to use, in GH and WB. Take a look at the "survival" estimates they use for release from nets. Look at the survival difference (the used zero) between use of the recovery boxes and not using them.

Failure to make a promised call when it would require an acknowledgement of a significant error on their part cannot be blithely excused as a lack of diligence. Whether the initial discrepancy was simply an error is possible but it certainly went toward supporting their position. It would have been far easier to have accepted it as an error had he promptly checked it out, contacted me to acknowledge their error, and incorporated the correct figure in the remaining public hearings.

Anyway, you asked for examples

Have never been lied to in person by WDFW, but I don't have many personal interactions with them.
I don't trust them to look out for what is best for the state's sportsmen.
That being said, no matter how [Bleeeeep!] up they are they won't ever kill my desire to fish.
Quit fishing and they win.
SF

There is some truth to the idea that many folks don't know or understand WDFW's role and responsibilities. They are responsible for the management of all non-Indian fishing and hunting in WA, whether it is recreational or commercial. As such, they have to "balance" use among many stakeholders. It is complex, especially when one adds in the Tribes and their desires, which now actually trump a pure application of the Boldt Case 50:50 sharing. Further complicating the situation is ESA and how the Feds interpret that.

Having said that, WDFW tends be pretty secretive in their methods. As folks on here know, WDFW has difficulty in complying with the laws regarding rule-making, has difficulty in producing models that are computationally logical, and basically has issues with making sure stakeholders know what is going on. "Trust me" just doesn't work any more.

I believe that they are hamstrung by the tribes' influence in state and national politics. This about a whole lot more than just how fish and wildlife are shared. It is the old "follow the money" and WDFW is a situation where they simply can't win.

94% no and mostly no. WDFW are you listening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is a very easy method to insure they do:

jim.unsworth@dfw.wa.gov

commission@dfw.wa.gov

publicaffairs@dfw.wa.gov

Perhaps if everyone who voted would drop them a line?

I have emailed the Director several times and have never even received so much as an automatic response acknowledging that he got the emails.