Just When You Think It Could Not Get Worse For WDF

By Eli Francovich
elif@spokesman.com
(509) 459-5508

A cultural audit of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, started in lieu of allegations of pervasive sexual harassment, found problems with communication, bullying and internal accountability, according to the Office of the Washington State Auditor.

The culture audit, however, which is the first of its kind in Washington State, did not find that sexual harassment was a pervasive issue.

The audit was first conceived in response to allegations of widespread sexual harassment throughout the agency, culminating in the conviction of former Fish and Wildlife Deputy Director Greg Schirat of rape in 2018. At the same time, stakeholders, including politicians, raised concerns about the agency’s culture and accountability, said Emily Cimber, the lead performance auditor.

Despite the problems, Cimber credited the agency for taking proactive steps.

The State Auditor’s office started the culture audit about two years ago. In 2018, Kelly Suseswind was named WDFW’s new director, replacing Jim Unsworth, who had a tumultuous tenure, one marked by the sexual assault allegations and controversy over the handling of bear and wolf hunting practices.

Susewind said he had hoped they would delay the audit until he had a chance to implement changes, but added that he believes the report is “fair.”

“I think it reflects the agency that I see,” he said in an interview Tuesday.

Auditors surveyed approximately 800 of about 1,800 WDFW employees and spoke with 222 of them, including 40 individual interviews, 27 group interviews, 10 job shadows and six meetings with regional management. DFW employees also had a dedicated phone line to SAO to discuss their experiences with the office.

In particular, 21% of WDFW employees said they’d experienced workplace bullying, while 30% said they’d witnessed it.

Meanwhile, 48% of respondents said they had a “positive” view of the workplace culture, 27% had a neutral view and 25% had a negative view.

Another problem highlighted by the culture audit was poor communication and the creation of “workplace silos that contributed to communication challenges, which in turn have diminished employee trust in management and hindered cooperation across programs.”

Some staff said they wanted more detailed information about WDFW policy to share with the public.

The one area of the report to which Susewind took exception was the comparison of the agency’s reported rate of bullying to a national average of all adults, not simply adults in the workplace. When compared to reported rates of bullying in the workplace, WDFW’s rate is only slightly higher than the national rate of 20%.

“It looks like we’re twice as bad,” he said when compared to the national average of all adults.

In a written and published response to the audit, Susewind wrote that like other natural resource agencies WDFW “continues to have some of the lowest diversity in state government.”

“As a large, multidisciplinary organization with staff in every corner of the state, WDFW struggles to effectively communicate from the top down, from the bottom up, and across region and program areas. The audit highlighted the need to strengthen internal communication: two-way communication, one-way communication from leadership, and cross-program communication to reduce silos.”

The audit highlighted the positive steps WDFW has taken, in particular the hiring of a new human resources director in 2019 after a “history of low morale and high turnover, which also contributed to negative staff perceptions around accountability” in that department. Since 2019, “the internal culture within HR has shown significant improvement in the last year, but wider agency perceptions take time to change,” the report states.

In particular, the audit recommended WDFW allow employees to review their managers and clarify policies around unprofessional behavior and develop a professional conduct policy, among other things.

“You need to be patient and stay the course,” Cimber said. “Research says it takes three to five years to see a change in culture.”

The audit cost $1.8 million for about 11,500 person-hours of work.

Following the publication of the audit’s finding, Washington Wildlife First, a new nonprofit aimed at reforming WDFW, published a news release and letter asking Gov. Jay Inslee to appoint two new commissioners to the WDFW Commission, a nine-member commission that oversees the agency.

“We need Fish and Wildlife commissioners who will not only follow science, but who will have the dedication and moral compass to guide the agency in a new direction,” said David Linn, the interim executive director in the news release.

“We are calling on Governor Inslee to take a stand, not only for the state’s fish and wildlife, but for the brave employees who risked their jobs by speaking to the state auditor. They need to know that their voices have been heard.”

Oh, so now it’s the home of the Brave......

We are calling on Governor Inslee to take a stand, not only for the state’s fish and wildlife, but for the brave employees who risked their jobs by speaking to the state auditor. They need to know that their voices have been heard.”

Surprised they have improved that much.

$156 an hr for the audit!

Does anyone here actually know what a Cultural Audit really is ?

"$156 an hr for the audit!"

Surprised it was that cheep. Not saying it was money well spent but just surprised it wasn't $250+/hr as many/most consultancies charge.

It's really interesting that the pitch to get anti-hunting, and to a lesser extent, anti-fishing people onto the commission was included in a news release regarding a completely unrelated issue.

If you care about hunting in this state you should be very, very concerned about what's going on in Inslee's backroom political dealings to get these people in.

Unbelievable. I didn’t even think wdfw had rapists running it. I only know they still need to pay up from wiping out the Snohomish Chum. Facebook wdfw had a post about some dude poaching silvers today. They didn’t have any post about an entire run being wiped out for some strange/weird reason(s).

S

They’re still looking for the right entity (s) to lay the blame on. Not including themselves.....

The only one of the many signatory organizations I recognized was the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and that should give you an idea of the bent of their version of Conservation.

The issue being raised is a good one.

The agency is known as the ‘Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’. But is it more accurate to say it’s the “Washington Department of Fishing and Hunting”?

In other words, is their mission “fish and wildlife conservation” or “consumptive use of selected fish and wildlife resources”? Should WDFW focus on addressing the needs of hunters and anglers (and commercial fishermen), or should they focus on protecting, conserving, and sustaining all fish and wildlife resources in the State of Washington, regardless of whether those resources are the focus of fishing or hunting?

For example, nobody fishes for the Olympic mudminnow, but should WDFW expend limited resources on protecting the only endemic fish species in the State of Washington? *

These two roles are not incompatible. They can do both. But given the history, and funding, of almost all State F/W agencies, any transition from a consumptive-use agency to a conservation-based agency will be difficult, and perhaps painful. It would be, in effect, a huge cultural shift. And, given that this is a cultural audit, that seems consistent with the intent of the report, although it might not be quite that explicit.

The addition of two commissioners who are not aligned with hunters and anglers is likely a step in that direction.

(*In this context, ‘endemic’ means it is found nowhere else except in the State of Washington. All other fish that inhabit the State of Washington are also found someplace else, except the Olympic mudminnow.)

Back when I started out it was the WA Department of Sport Fishing and Hunting. The head of the Fish Division had a cow when the agencies monthly magazine had an article on mudminnows.

There was some truth to that model as the agency was funded by license funds almost entirely. In the 70s, the first personalized license plates were implemented and the funds went to non-Game resources.

It is true, to a point, that maintaining habitat for consumed species benefits the non-consumed. But, as seen in CA, concern for lead poisoning of Condors is a trigger point with many hunters.

The mission statement of the agency (WDFW) is to preserve, protect, and enhance the wildlife resources of WA. That means conservation of all the resources is primary with harvest secondary. The fly in the ointment is that the Leg expects consumptive users to pay the freight and this isn't right. License fees should produce resources that benefit the payees. If the state wants to produce salmon (say) for Indians, commercial non-Indians, Alaska, and Canada then the General Fund needs to pay up.

First, it was only a year or two ago that it was revealed that none of the Commissioners at that time had licenses to hunt or fish. Plus a couple of the current Commissioners seem to be leaning to the non-consumptive side hence the push for two more of that bent to give them a majority on the Commission and then the Chair.

I also have a major point of contention with the implied definitions of some of the terms and specifically that consumptive use is not conservation. I prefer to define conservation as being wise use whereas HSUS and its ilk are adamant preservationists who seem to be of the "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" mentality with little to no understanding or regard to certain realities such as funding.

I agree that 'consumptive use' cannot occur (in a sustainable manner) without some level of conservation. So they are not mutually exclusive.

But how much conservation should be directed at fish and wildlife resources that are not subject to any form of consumptive use? The Olympic mudminnow is an example of how that question should be asked.

We're all well aware of the funding issue since all of us on this BB buy fishing or hunting licenses. Or both. Virtually all funding for WDFW comes from hunters and anglers thru license fees, excise taxes, etc. So I get it. The issue is similar to other sources of revenue. For example, how much gasoline taxes should be spent on bike paths? Or pedestrian trails and bridges?

My point is that the cultural audit seems to suggest a cultural shift within WDFW is needed. A discussion of what that cultural shift might mean for WDFW, and for all of us, is worth having.

Carry on.

Cohoangler,

I've got a pie chart of WDFW funding around here somewhere, but my recollection is that the General Fund is a greater part of Department funding than are hunting and fishing licenses and fees.

Nonetheless, I'm totally in favor of a cultural shift away from spending funds provided by license buyers and taxpayers to raise hatchery salmon for AK, BC, and commercial fishing. I think the Department is long overdue for a hatchery audit that examines each hatchery based on how many salmon are returned to recreational anglers per dollar of hatchery funding. I bet state taxpayers would much rather pay to raise salmon for orcas than to support salmon fishing in AK, BC, and WA commercial fishermen. Of course that option can't really be on the table when AK and BC "low hole" the SRKW orcas.

There was an interesting article in the recent "Fisheries" (AFS). In Idaho, they looked at the costs of producing larger rainbow legals and if it was "worth" it in terms of the cost to put those fish in the reel. Turns out that while the larger fish were more costly to produce, they were harvested at a higher rate so that the big fish were actually cheaper to put in the creel.

I saw (in the late 90s, early 00s) the cost for WDFW to put each hatchery stock into the creel. So, they have done it. But it needs to look at whose creel. Anything funded by licenses goes to license holders in WA.

As to cultural shift in WDFW, there are currently plenty of folks who see no need to be concerned that planted trout eliminate native amphibians and also support actual removal of loons from waters where they might eat stocked trout.

Thanks Salmo g.

I would note that WDFW received roughly $8.5 million from Federal excise taxes on fishing tackle and hunting equipment in 2021.

https://www.fws.gov/wsfrprograms/Subpages/GrantPrograms/SFR/SFRFinalApportionment2021.pdf

If we add license fees to the excise tax, that would be the contribution from hunters and anglers. But I'm not sure what Washington State taxpayers (General fund) contributes to their overall budget. I would hope they could at least match (1:1) what hunters and anglers contribute.

A true accounting of what is provided by the consumptive users is the add the state-issued license revenue and the DJ/PR. That is money provided by the consumers.

At the same time, the license plate revenue for specific uses should be specifically called out, too. The vanity plate funding for non-game and so on.

Dam mitigation likewise, and maybe even and inclusion as to the specifics of fish production. To see how well they meet obligations. These fish, though, by definition, are mitigation to all for lost production so AK does have a claim on dam mitigation (for example).

When WDG became WDW they were grated access to GF, supposedly to meet the needs of the non-consumptive user.

Something to remember if folks push for getting what you pay for (fee for service) is that as numbers of hunters/fishers decline and costs rise that license fees will, of necessity, go up.

One thing that is happening further east of us, primarily with hunting but also fishing, is the privatization of access. The result is the hunting and fishing is much better on the those lands/waters but are available to fewer folks and at a higher cost. Just following the American Plan to monetize and prioritize everything.

.....further east of us...?

More like right in our backyard.

https://recreation.weyerhaeuser.com/

Weyerhaeuser got State subsidies to allow access to their lands. But now they're charging a fee. I'm sure you're already familiar with this topic.

Apologies for taking this thread in a different direction, but Carcassman's point is spot-on.

Well having worked in the woods for 38 years I think hunters miss a point which is people! Vandalism drove Weyco to temporarily gate off roads that were active work sites. Garbage dumpers are still a real problem in places but hell the crap used to get dumped by the truck load at lower Melbourne let alone the mess at Bear Gulch. I came around a corner once and some clown was blazing away at buck crossing a side landing in front of me. Dear hunters ( road hunters ) can be a pain but the Elk hunters have an element that is totally out to lunch. I seen a group of guys blazing away at a herd running with a riggin side on the side hill about 150 ft above the Elk tearing down the gorge.

It is a double edged sword to be sure that frankly people being people lacks a fair solution to the problem.

People are a train wreck and last I checked people run the WDFW.

CM-
For a true accounting of the "consumers" remember that most of also taxpayers and as such contribute to the the general fund portion of WDFW's budget.

The "consumers" on an individual bases contribute as much as the non-consumers via the general funds and additionally contribute by paying those license fees.

curt

Then the agency should be entirely supported by GF with no licenses. The license fees should get you something in addition to what everybody else gets.

I believe that a well-run agency can preserve and restore habitat based on license fees, but that action needs to show demonstrable benefit.

I think much of the anger and the current situation, beyond providing fish for lots of non-payers, is that the resources continue to decline as well as opportunity and access. You have often noted that there is no biologically justified reason for many of the closures (such as Stilly CT) and yet they occur because WDFW does not support the folks who pay the freight. But, that's just how I see it from where I sit and what I chase. So, more often than not my money gets spent elsewhere.

C'man, your second paragraph above puzzles me. I think the agency can manage hunters and fishers on license fees alone, but not "preserve and restore habitat." Remember, WDFW has very little jurisdictional authority when it comes to habitat management, typically limited to commenting and advising and extremely limited veto authority. So money is not the issue in regards to habitat preservation. Restoration, on the other hand, is extraordinarily expensive. WDFW spends little or no money of its own on habitat restoration, relying on federal grants and the SRF Board, which is a combination of state and federal sources. Not to get into details, but it often looks as though the cost of restoring a unit of aquatic habitat is tenfold more costly than the direct and indirect costs of protecting it from degradation in the first place. But I digress.

The reason I try to make a point regarding hatchery audits is totally because the return on investment (ROI) to the taxpaying and license buying citizen is all but disappearing. When ocean survival rates are high, and there are abundant hatchery and wild salmon, and angling opportunity abounds, those who pay WDFW's freight in taxes and licenses don't care all that much that the lion's share of salmon are harvested in AK, BC, and WA treaty and non-treaty commercial fisheries. However, now that ocean survival rates return minimal numbers of harvestable fish to those who pay to produce them, it is both reasonable and necessary that WDFW audit hatcheries with respect to the return to those who fund them. This is particularly so at a time when WDFW insists that it requires more money from the GF and from license buyers to carry out management activities for fish that, for the most part, don't even exist any longer.

This is more than a paradigm shift. WDFW can no longer justify its activities as "because this is the way we've always done it." It's become a malfeasance of duty to raise millions of hatchery salmon and release them into an ocean that no longer supports their survival at a rate that supports fishing by those who pay the bills.

Two years ago when anglers complained to central WA WDFW that not enough trout were being stocked in Grant County lakes they were told that WDFW didn't have enough money. That, of course, was complete [Bleeeeep!]. All WDFW needed to do is reprogram one salmon hatchery to trout production - all with existing funds - and the people in Grant County would have to be digging some new lakes to find room for all the additional trout that could be produced. My point here is that WDFW is stuck on doing what they've been doing because making a significant change would require making a decision. And making a decision is antithetical to a bureaucrat. So instead, WDFW managers would rather keep raising hatchery salmon - at our expense, with next to nothing in return - for AK and Canada and commercial fishing to catch, even though they contribute little or nothing to the $$ cost of doing so. Sorry for the thread drift.

I see what you mean Salmo. What I was trying to say was that managing habitat for "ecosystem values" gets you better habitat for hunted and fished animals. And certainly protecting the habitat in the first place is cheaper.

I agree that they out to do much better with trout.

To drift the thread some more, just how are we going to bring in new anglers? I can see folks with kids going to a pond to catch sunfish (like I did) or fishing for hatchery trout stocked in the stream by CDFG (walk and wade). But WA seems to be hell bent on emphasizing angling that requires a boat. I really can't imagine someone who neve fished waking up one day and deciding to buy an ocean-going boat to chase salmon. Or a bass boat or walleye boat. These are great fisheries, but they aren't entry-level.

Agree 100%. My entry level was experienced as an 8-10 yr old chasing planted trout on the Cispus R. My Gramps taught me on a fly rod and reel w/ mono strip n cast worms/pautzke's/salad shrimp... wish it was flies. Hooked ever since. With age and experience graduated to Steelhead and Fly Fishing. The rest shot up from there. Without that early exposure, never would be where I am today. Do have to say I am a boat owner and chase salt water fish. But I think that is what everyone graduates to at some point?

My first fishing trips were along the upper Sacramento with my Dad when I was 2. My first real memories were the summer of '59 when I handled some trout at Y-camp, the caught a bunch of planters in a creek in the Sierra. Spent the next 10-15 years chasing either trout or sunfish/bass. almost never from a boat. The only boat trips were trolling and that gets damn boring when nothing bites.

For me, the best schooling I had was Green Sunfish in a couple ponds in a park. Handline at first, with an egg hook and doughballs . They were small, often 2-3" with 4 or 5 being a toad. Occasionally fly fished for them , used spinners once. But you learned to put the bait in good cover, how to feel bites, and so on. Plus, when an hour of fishing gave you 20-30 fish, you got positive feedback.

When I came up to WA for Grad School I first heard about that magical fish "Steelhead". The popular knowledge was that it was 100 hours per fish, averaged over all the idiots. I don't know, but as a youngster I really don't think that standing on the bank on cold winter day for days at a time with nothing to show for it but cold hands was not my idea of how to get someone into the game.

CM-
Once again it might be good to define some of our terms.

Typically when folks hear the terms "managing habitat for ecosystem values" we think of habitats that would support the historic or near historic abundances of fish and wildlife. We all would do well to remember that here in the Washington the decision has clearly been made with wide support society has opted for a broader definition of "managing habitat for ecosystem values". That expanded definition ecosystems values includes all the infrastructure we have decided we need to live (our cities, roads, power generation, water, etc.) as well as managing much of the remaining lands for such things as agriculture and forestry. In the Puget Sound basin it is clear for at least the anadromous salmonids we as a society have co-op much of that historic ecosystem for are own uses leaving precious little available for those salmonids.

The decision seems to be that we might be willing to reserve maybe 5% of that original ecosystem for those fish. Of course that comes with a huge caveat - as long as it does not cost us too much!!

In that reality management agencies like WDFW have few if any magical bullets increase historic fish and wildlife species.

Collectively if we want more salmon we need to cast fewer stones at our management agencies (though they certainly deserve some) and more time looking in our mirrors asking if those societal decisions have been worth while and are we willing to pay the price to reverse some.

Curt

I have to disagree about just how bad the current habitat is. The lowlands are (generally) trashed which compromises coho production because they have lost the beaver pond swamp complexes. Some watersheds are worse than others and should be written off for the production of wild anadromous salmonids. These are the only ones where hatchery production should occur.

But, over the last 20 years we have seen cyclic ups and downs (huge) in pinks and chums. There is no reason why, in years of abundance, streams can't have 1.5-2 kg/sq m of spawners. This would be multi-millions in the larger systems. As has been shown in AK (and hinted at in a couple of WA systems) these escapements produce greatly enhanced returns of coho and steelhead. The kicker is that the low returns, particularly of coho, can be modeled as "sustainable" so we keep the numbers low.

Often there are complaints that sediment levels damage egg-fry survival. The cheapest way too clean that out, as has been shown in Fraser, is mass spawning. That doesn't keep it out; land use planning does that. But it gets it out.

Pictures of WA watersheds, particularly on the westside, from the late 1800s/early 1900s show watershed bereft of trees. And that produced more fish than watersheds are capable of now?

If the freshwater habitat and the marine habitat are so bad, why are the native char and anadromous cutthroat responding to recovery actions? Are they simply better adapted to the trashed watersheds?

I agree we have a long ways to go, but I don't think the habitat is as bad as folks are pushing.