WDFW Leadership

Fast forward to 53:30

If you can keep watching without cringing at least go look at how it ends at 1:10.

http://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2017011402

Yikes.

UMsworth...

Good times.

we're screwed...

Braun is a prick.

He was obviously talking about comments on the fee increase (nothing positive) and Unsworth was talking about the comments received during their statewide "listening sessions", pre-increase. Braun obviously has a hard*n for the Dept. Not that most of you don't....

However, I agree that Unsworth came off horribly unprepared and goofy.

SOS

I'm think'n that Unsworth got told "don't come here and try to blow smoke up our butts".........your surveys clearly show the opposite of what you telling us today !!!!!!!!

When I worked for the State I got told more than once "Put your WANTS in one hand and sh!t in the other, see what you have the most of"

OUCH!

That was embarrassing!

A Director of a Department who has the responsibility to manage OUR public resources, who goes before a Senate committee and does such a poor job of presenting his case should not get the sympathy of the citizens, he should be run out of town!

Is there any question WHY our fisheries are spiraling down the $hithole and the Tribes are running the show?

My sympathies go out to the poor staff at WDFW that are busting their humps trying to make sense out of a Department who's leadership is just plain incompetent.

That was not his finest moment.

It's now perfectly clear a change in direction is desperately needed at the helm of WDFW. The fish rots from the head down--and the decay is overwhelmingly obvious. An alarming budget deficit, inability to deal effectively with the Tribes, extremely low morale amongst enforcement agents and biologists in the field, Commissioners lacking cohesion and common purpose, license and tag fees forcing many off the water and out of the wild, total mismanagement of the Willapa Bay potential...and a citadel in Olympia where most employees look over their shoulders to anticipate the next edict from above, followed by taking cover in their cubicles. Public meetings where transparency is reciting the same thing printed in handouts, not hearing or seeing what actually transpires at NOF or "extremely sensitive" Tribal confabs...and above all else...absolutely no incentive or impetus to make the fisheries a level playing field for all, while creating a sustainable yield salmon fishery. How much more? How much longer? The last fish will soon be out there somewhere. Bring Joe Stohr into play, and give him a fighting chance to turn things around before it's beyond all hope.

WOW.......

That looked pretty bad, alright.

Frustrated as I am, I feel for the guy. Realistically, the ones sitting on their high perches and slinging the arrows are the ones responsible for the current state of our fisheries, because recent legislative votes indicate that a vast majority of our senators and reps are backing tribal interests that conflict with ours.

The way Unsworth stammered through his spiel made it obvious to me that he didn't believe in the message he was tasked with delivering any more than the committee did. The facts are that, in order to provide us with even the status quo level of opportunity, WDFW is going to need more money, yet in the wake of last year's NOF debacle and the loss of opportunity it left behind, seeking that money through fee increases (the only avenue they really have) is an indefensible position. Due largely to circumstances beyond his control, his head is squarely on the chopping block, and it may be the first head to roll in the (overdue) shakeup coming WDFW's way. (I sincerely hope it's management that gets cut; not the people on the ground doing the best work they can, but I strongly suspect otherwise.)

Budgets must be balanced, so cuts are coming, which can only be bad news for hunters and anglers. The next biennium doesn't hold much promise for anything but more lost opportunity in the sporting community, but at least we won't be asked to pay more to receive our less (this year).

Does anyone see any hope for a positive outcome here? If so, I could use some good news....

So I watched it again and you know if CC when he worked for the agency had let his boss go into a hearing as unprepared as the Director was hell to pay comes to mind. For whatever reason the Director was running with a presentation that had been prepared for him that was just a standard WDF&W roll out. Standard agency slant that has worked in the past but the thing is the little dust up with the senate is two years old. Remember the we used up reserves bit?

So round two but I do not know enough to fine tune a argument pro or con around it. For the senate bit the agency always operates in a emergency mode moving from issue to issue. Thing is government is system oriented. By that I mean go clear through a process ( NOF as a example ) terrible results, crap flying but in the end if the process worked fine regardless of the outcome. Private sector is results orientated and whatever your process if the end result was a product incomplete or non marketable your history in a NY minute.

Two different standards & two different outcomes which still work as long as you can afford it. That is the rub as WDF&W cannot function as it has in the past going forward and they have zero and I mean zero idea of how to be results orientated.

The link just provides TVW, not the hearing in question. How do I find the hearing that Paker refers too?

It's a direct link to the specific hearing, SG.

Mebbe a problem with your browser?

After watching that, I worry a lot more about the commission delegating the negotiations over non-concurrence in the CR Policy solely to the director.

Why are the tribes running the show? Not because of the Director or the Commission! While WDFW certainly has its issues the Leadership Issue which Sen. Pearson opined it is my view that that problem starts at the top - meaning Federal. And then there is the Governor and State legislature which further constrains the Commission and Department.

So, let's hold the Commission and Director accountable for what is within their purview - and not for perceived failures over which they have little or no control.

And let's also continue to push those in a position of power for appropriate changes both in financing and relationships with the tribes.

I don't know if I want to laugh or cry after watching that. Wow that was quite the beat down at the end...it was like a dad catching his son for lying and belittling him in front of all his friends to teach him a lesson.

Sigh...

BD

I think this is called "cringe comedy".

Pretty poorly done by all involved. And I include the senator who just couldn't wait to humiliate unsworth. But yeah, unsworth didn't help matters by crapping the bed.

I am no policy expert...but it seems like WDFW is caught in a catch-22 here.

those W&M clowns who hold the purse strings are on the up side of the exploding population (i.e. the increased tax base), whereas WDFW is on the down side. The rapid pace development degrades the salmon habitat even more.

Thank you Larry,

You and I have agreed on many points and I respect your opinion, on this though, we have a difference of perspective:

It IS the Directors responsibility to manage the resource. If it fails, it is ultimately his failure. If he does not have the tools to effectively do his job, or is in need of assistance to correct some issues that impact his ability to responsibly manage, then it is HIS responsibility to reach out and seek that assistance. Are the Feds needed to correct the permitting issue which gives the Tribes leverage in the NOF process, yes. Is it the Directors responsibility to get federal assistance by notifying the appropriate departments, yes.

An effective leader stands up for what he believes, says what he means, and means what he says.

For example: Director Unsworth stated publicly that he supported open NOF meetings, yet what did he do to try to get that accomplished? He allowed the Tribes to declare the meetings Gov't to Gov't, without any challenge at all. Further, he put out a public relations statement arguing FOR the Tribes position by saying "These government-to-government meetings must occur for fishing seasons to be set." It is HIS FAILURE to find a solution to the permitting problem that makes it a "MUST" we agree with what the Tribes want!

I can go on and on about failed accountability, failed enforcement, etc. It is clear, there is a lack of competent leadership. Leadership that will stand up for whats right!

Simply saying a leader is not to blame for his failures contradicts the meaning of leader. What an effective Department Head does is look for and works for solutions, not makes excuses that it's not his fault.

I agree, he is the head of a department that in many ways is a mire of agendas, influences, personalities and political end games, but that's what he was appointed to manage. Failing to do so, and looking for excuses is not leadership. At least not the leadership we need to fix the problems. We need a Director that will have the integrity to stand up. Seek the resources and assistance needed to make the changes, and let us all know when things aren't looking good so we can all work together to save our fish.

The Director is in a difficult position. He has no money unless the legislature and governor give it to him. He can't simply spend money unless it is appropriated.

If the legislature;ature is mad, they can control the money.

So, he can say all he wants but if the Leg says no money, they're broke.

I aggree and dissagree, there is a fvck load of money in fisheries right now... but our legislatures would rather have that money fill their re-election coffers than actually go to the fisheries...

legalize gambling or at least threaten to legalize it and watch the cockroaches run... untaxed $$

That's it right there. There's more than one way to level the playing field.

Still doesn't change the fact if the Leg does not appropriate money to WDFW they have nothing to spend.

You have some points with which I agree. Could the current Director be more of an advocate at the Legislature? Probably. But keep in mind that the downward spiral of GF losses began under a prior Director. And when it comes to leadership I think it fair to also recognize that when a subordinate brings his needs forward and is rebuffed those making that decision have ownership of the results. Again, it is not as though the Legislature is totally dependent upon this Director's ability to make them aware of what has been occurring financially as well as the impacts of their (Legislative) GF cutbacks.

I'm on board with Baywolf. Throughout this nightmare, I have yet to see any form of documented attempt to reach out to the Feds for oversight, direction, mediation or arbitration. Has it come down to arrogance and/or stubborn pride? Jim Goerg recently updated his running editorial @ Reel News by putting forth "WA State, the only one with two governments...the USofA, and the Tribes." For my part in this, it comes down to one simple principle, that being upholding and defending the civil liberties and rights of ALL Americans has the same priority, and is just as important as doing so for Native Americans. Get DC into this mess based on applying the principles set forth by the Boldt Decision, put all parties involved in their proper place, and return some sanity and direction to this fiasco.

In total agreement but remember that the Director is not an elected position. Protecting the rights of we citizens (when the treaties were signed tribal leaders signed for their tribes and citizens while Stevens et al signed for the U.S. Government and its citizens) should come from elected officials be it Federal enacting laws or State by way of the AG.

As an aside, I was just wondering if our illustrious Governor has paid off his bet (including smoked salmon) with the Gov of North Carolina using salmon he caught or tribal or Alaskan fish?

If all that holds true, and the elected Governor delegates the enforcement authority to the WDFW, then so be it...otherwise, State Patrol men and women would have primary enforcement authority. They would then be faced with writing citations and making arrests just as the Wardens do now...with the same results. Native Americans are not subject to the same Washington State fish and game rules, regulations and laws intended to promote conservation and wanton waste of our resources. Last Fall's debacle at the Ballard Locks was on federally owned and controlled property, and it would be well-advised if Federal Marshalls be on-site when the Coho return once again. All in all, the comprehensive totality involved in this issue would see a plane load of Legislators, the Commissioners and their Director, WDFW field biologists, Commercial industry reps, CCA and PSA chapter heads and anyone else involved as both stakeholders and leaders to right a wrong, and bring about a sustained yield fisheries resource for us all.

I used IE in order to make the link work, so I finally was able to watch the linked meeting. Eh gads, I've never seen a departmental representative so unprepared to testify for a legislative committee. There used to be a Legislative Liaison position in the Department; I don't know if there still is. Some one needs to educate the Director about how state government works and how to work with the gov't.

Based on the W&M meeting and Pearson's NR committee meeting, it looks like no new money for WDFW in the upcoming biennium, and likely another decrease in GF money. It's late in the game now, but I think WDFW should "right size" its business plan based on the prospective budget and share it with the key Legislative committees so they have a heads up on hatchery closures and other cut backs to balance the Department's budget.

Since commercial fishing brings in less than 3% of the Department's budget, this could be a golden opportunity for the Department to close hatcheries that primarily produce salmon for BC and the small NT commercial fleets in GH, WB, and LCR. The Department should spend no more on commercial fishing than commercial fishing contributes to the Department, unless the Legislature chooses to provide GF $ to subsidize welfare fishing. That could alleviate most, if not all, of the projected budget shortfall.

Salmo,

I've highlighted (bold) all of the areas in the WDFW Mission Statement that speak directly or indirectly to commercial enterprise or the benefits thereof. Maybe you folks should seek to change the Agency's mission statement? Otherwise, aren't they just following the State's mandate?

From the WDFW webpage:

Mission and Goals

Our Mission

To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.

Vision

Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems.

WDFW defines “Conservation” as:

Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs.
(Adapted from The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005)

Department Goals

To achieve its mission, WDFW will continue to focus its activities on the following four goals:

Goal 1:
Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife

Goal 2:
Provide sustainable fishing, hunting, and other wildlife-related recreational and commercial experiences
Goal 3:
Promote a healthy economy, protect community character, maintain an overall high quality of life, and deliver high-quality customer service

Goal 4:
Build an effective and efficient organization by supporting our workforce, improving business processes, and investing in technology

Once again Salmo, you have some excellent points!

I will say this one time here and former or current WDF&W employees do not get your panties in a knot. First good relations between the co managers is not possible with the current regime. WDF&W never has and never will accept tribal rights. That WDF&W ( with old Game ) threw the first, second, third blow and many more is undeniable. That the tribes weathered that and now have the upper hand is also true as is the fact that they wasted no time going for the " eye for an eye " bit.

Secondly if you think that WDF&W will turn loose of the NT Commercial fisheries minus legislative or court induced effort you are wrong. Why I do not know but I do know this. The dislike between the two staffs has gotten personal and at times border line raciest ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TABLE.

So if you think that the staff on either side is open to any damn thing your wrong again. It will require rather stern outside interference most likely from a judge to make it happen.

The law does say "commercial". Does not say NI commercial. The Indians are commercial, they are voting citizens of the state, and maintaining their commercial industry complies with bit state and federal law.

It was rather personal, to be sure. Having worked with the Tribes (mostly PS) for a while on primary salmon issues I found that a little honesty went a long ways. On both sides. We did our best technically and then let the policy folks make decisions. Most of the time, we were also told why so that we could explain it to stakeholders. WDG was less accommodating and had more conflicts.

Then we got Co-Management. At that point, rather than try to find the "best" answer we tried to satisfy the tribes.

Unfortunately, WDFW no longer has, in my mind, either a conservation ethic (Per Ado Leopold) or, an more importantly, any way to support one. They don't have the money, they don't have the authority to protect land and water for natural resource production, and they don't have political support to stop anybody.

As a consequence, folks find their narrow niche to work in and do that well. All the while ensuring that the walls of that silo are never scratched much less broken down.

That hot potato has come up before and for some reason no one wants to engage........

Good luck selling that in Pacific and Wahkiakum Counties, not to mention to the Puget Sound non-treaty pink, chum, and sockeye commercials.

I believe that the Court, in a PS crab case, recently said that the recreational crab fishery was commercial because of the economic impact.

As to Pacific County, at least, they ARE the commercial entity. Whiakiakum may have to share with the upper Columbia tribes so there could be argument there but with no lower C tribes it could be argued that they, too, would be the commercial arm if the recs weren't a strong enough economic engine.

JustBecause,

Oh I understand the legislative mandate for commercial fishing. However, if the Legislature chooses not to provide sufficient funding for the Dept. to perform the task, the Dept. is likely on solid legal ground working on commercial fishing management to the extent commercial fishing funds the Dept. There is nothing at law that I am aware of that compels the Dept to rob fishing license fees to produce salmon for commercial harvest or perform the more detailed management exercises necessary for the highly consumptive commercial harvest.

The Legislature sets the budget, and it comes from various sources. The Dept should work for the constituents that produce income revenue for the Dept, proportional to the amount of that revenue.

Sg

One thing to watch is not what the Leg, or any politician, says but what they put money to. It's what they're willing to spend money on.

Sg is absolutely spot on, but JustBecause is also correct. The mission may not say "rob the citizens who pay the most for the fish," but the political reality is that it does just that.

+1

It is a interesting concept but it does not come without consequences. Reduce the number of hatchery fish in the ocean pool and impacts on natural production will rise rapidly but it takes 3 years to show and 4 & 5 ( Chinook ) to really kick in. So you end up with the old problem of intercept fisheries being at the root of any changes. There are a couple of places in our state that if you take out hatchery production both Rec and NT Commercials are history with a vastly diminished tribal catch all that is left.

So the argument that is the hatcheries or Rec fisher that are the problem is not exactly true but absolutely true depending on your location.

On another note Willapa has Rec priority so that is a bit off BUT WDF&W staff keep trying to chip away at that so right / wrong at the same time. As to GH the NT Commercial impacts are limited by policy but as in Willapa games are played some but nuthin like elsewhere. I will stay out of the LCR bit as I know little but again reduce the ocean pool without reform to AK & BC and nothing good happens.

Local paper reports "Sparks fly..."

http://www.thedailyworld.com/news/sparks...ildlife-budget/

‘The powers to be’----have spoken.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news...gn=RSS_politics

Gov. Jay Inslee’s handling of nominations for a federal fishery-council seat has come under attack from the leaders of major North Pacific fishing-industry groups, which have taken the unusual step of sending a complaint letter to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

In their letter sent Tuesday, they asked Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to reject Inslee’s nominations and called for the governor to come up with some new names for a seat on the council. The industry backlash reflects the high stakes in fish politics, where the federal fishery council helps sets the rules for a billion-dollar groundfish harvest, much of which is caught and processed by Seattle-based companies.

Well, at Least Inslee's recommendations are for more selective longliners. No matter what gear they favor, I'm sure they'll still manage to harvest over half our fish before they see the Lower 48. If that entails less bycatch and a healthier ocean floor, I guess we had better take it.

If the powers to be like to stack the deck, then what would happen if say a director of WDFW was appointed that wasn’t an “Ocean Guy”?

"Ocean Guy" definition:

One that protects the integrity of commercial ocean fisheries, with a sprinkling of just enough sport for aesthetic value, while throwing anadromous state fisheries under the bus.