Cooke is back, back again

[dustinchromers]

Grow their budget? Less than 1 percent of Washington's state budget goes to WDFW, DNR and other state natural resource management agencies.

WDFW alone gets roughly .5 percent of the state budget, despite employing 1,500+ people and providing an approx. $3 return in tax receipts for every dollar the state gives them. (2017-19 numbers for reference: WDFW Operating Budget of $427.6 million out of a state Operating Budget of $89 billion).

If conservation is just lip service for votes and money, and the state is "selling out" our fisheries, they're sure getting shit returns.

I agree that most voters and lawmakers in Olympia have next to zero interest in conservation. That's at the heart of the problem.

But as anglers (and other fish and wildlife stakeholders), we should be better than that, including calling on decision-makers to make the right calls on stuff like this fish farm bait and switch. And urging lawmakers in Olympia to give our state natural resource agencies adequate resources to do a better job at managing our natural heritage.

You are misunderstanding my comment. I was speaking to allowing this project and collecting money from them for permits, taxes, ect. I believe that wdfw is underfunded at best. I would gladly have more officers, more biologists, and more activities and monies flowing to conservation. I think the state is looking at this shortsighted in that they will garner revenue from Cooke. Yet at what cost to our resource?

Given the wdfw and DNR are such a small portion of the budget only speaks to the priorities in Olympia. These are the agencies charged with managing our most precious resources that in many cases are irreplaceable. The general fund grows while the resource shrinks. If priorities were genuinely different I think you would see the wdfw,DNR and other agencies getting a larger share of the state coffers. We agree on this. My apologies if my original post was unclear.

I will stand by my statement though in that allowing this project is no less than selling out our fisheries. And yes it's a shit return as well. A little revenue into the general fund black hole while endangering our already stressed stocks of salmon and steelhead. The gain isn't worth the risk. Lawmakers should have enough common sense to see this. Sadly many don't or don't care.

I'll stand by my other statement in that conservation is just lip service for many in Olympia. It simply is. If they were serious they would treat the problem seriously and not get all excited in the eleventh hour when orcas hit the news. We need to make serious changes in the face of a serious problem. We cannot save fisheries and continue business as usual.

 

[ChaseBallard]

You are misunderstanding my comment. I was speaking to allowing this project and collecting money from them for permits, taxes, ect. I believe that wdfw is underfunded at best. I would gladly have more officers, more biologists, and more activities and monies flowing to conservation. I think the state is looking at this shortsighted in that they will garner revenue from Cooke. Yet at what cost to our resource?

Given the wdfw and DNR are such a small portion of the budget only speaks to the priorities in Olympia. These are the agencies charged with managing our most precious resources that in many cases are irreplaceable. The general fund grows while the resource shrinks. If priorities were genuinely different I think you would see the wdfw,DNR and other agencies getting a larger share of the state coffers. We agree on this. My apologies if my original post was unclear.

I will stand by my statement though in that allowing this project is no less than selling out our fisheries. And yes it's a shit return as well. A little revenue into the general fund black hole while endangering our already stressed stocks of salmon and steelhead. The gain isn't worth the risk. Lawmakers should have enough common sense to see this. Sadly many don't or don't care.

I'll stand by my other statement in that conservation is just lip service for many in Olympia. It simply is. If they were serious they would treat the problem seriously and not get all excited in the eleventh hour when orcas hit the news. We need to make serious changes in the face of a serious problem. We cannot save fisheries and continue business as usual.

Apologies if I misunderstood. Sounds like we agree on quite a bit.

 

[Charles Sullivan]

You are misunderstanding my comment. I was speaking to allowing this project and collecting money from them for permits, taxes, ect. I believe that wdfw is underfunded at best. I would gladly have more officers, more biologists, and more activities and monies flowing to conservation. I think the state is looking at this shortsighted in that they will garner revenue from Cooke. Yet at what cost to our resource?

Given the wdfw and DNR are such a small portion of the budget only speaks to the priorities in Olympia. These are the agencies charged with managing our most precious resources that in many cases are irreplaceable. The general fund grows while the resource shrinks. If priorities were genuinely different I think you would see the wdfw,DNR and other agencies getting a larger share of the state coffers. We agree on this. My apologies if my original post was unclear.

I will stand by my statement though in that allowing this project is no less than selling out our fisheries. And yes it's a shit return as well. A little revenue into the general fund black hole while endangering our already stressed stocks of salmon and steelhead. The gain isn't worth the risk. Lawmakers should have enough common sense to see this. Sadly many don't or don't care.

I'll stand by my other statement in that conservation is just lip service for many in Olympia. It simply is. If they were serious they would treat the problem seriously and not get all excited in the eleventh hour when orcas hit the news. We need to make serious changes in the face of a serious problem. We cannot save fisheries and continue business as usual.

Who will pay for the lawsuit if they deny a permit? The reason for permitting would likely be that they can't afford not to.

The constant bad mouthing and anger towards wdfw creates the bad management, not vise versa.

Go sox,
Cds

 

[dustinchromers]

Who will pay for the lawsuit if they deny a permit? The reason for permitting would likely be that they can't afford not to.

The constant bad mouthing and anger towards wdfw creates the bad management, not vise versa.

Go sox,
Cds

Agree to disagree. A poor leader will always blame his underlings, those who are critical, and a host of other excuses. I doubt wdfw has lapsed into bad management because of hurt feelings and an increasingly critical public.

The state and the wdfw owe Cooke nothing. I would deny the permit on grounds of their proven poor record. End of story. Wdfw has a job to do though and that job is to protect the resource. Wdfw doesn't work for Cooke. Cooke has balls even asking to do this given what just happened a short time ago. Balls I tell you. It would be nice to see some balls by agencies who serve the people and resource of the state.

 

[Charles Sullivan]

Agree to disagree.

The state and the wdfw owe Cooke nothing. I would deny the permit on grounds of their proven poor record. End of story.

And if you were in charge you would drain your department dry.
I don't agree to disagree. There is reality and make believe. The st as te owes residents all the other things it does. You can't spend it all on fish.
This gets back to hatcheries being funded by many different sources. The other parts of wdfw are not. They have to deal with reality. Salmon recovery and whale money wont fund lawsuits.

Go dox,
Cds

 

[dustinchromers]

And if you were in charge you would drain your department dry.
I don't agree to disagree. There is reality and make believe. The st as te owes residents all the other things it does. You can't spend it all on fish.
This gets back to hatcheries being funded by many different sources. The other parts of wdfw are not. They have to deal with reality. Salmon recovery and whale money wont fund lawsuits.

Go dox,
Cds

Well Charles I'm afraid I'm just not as smart as you or worldly. Please excuse my simpleton opinions. You'd be the type of administrator to tiptoe around and not make a decisive action for fear of lawsuit. Maybe that's the right course.

 

[Bentley]

Agree to disagree. A poor leader will always blame his underlings, those who are critical, and a host of other excuses. I doubt wdfw has lapsed into bad management because of hurt feelings and an increasingly critical public.

The state and the wdfw owe Cooke nothing. I would deny the permit on grounds of their proven poor record. End of story. Wdfw has a job to do though and that job is to protect the resource. Wdfw doesn't work for Cooke. Cooke has balls even asking to do this given what just happened a short time ago. Balls I tell you. It would be nice to see some balls by agencies who serve the people and resource of the state.

On Point with your leadership comment.

 

[Charles Sullivan]

Agree to disagree. A poor leader will always blame his underlings, those who are critical, and a host of other excuses. I doubt wdfw has lapsed into bad management because of hurt feelings and an increasingly critical public.

The state and the wdfw owe Cooke nothing. I would deny the permit on grounds of their proven poor record. End of story. Wdfw has a job to do though and that job is to protect the resource. Wdfw doesn't work for Cooke. Cooke has balls even asking to do this given what just happened a short time ago. Balls I tell you. It would be nice to see some balls by agencies who serve the people and resource of the state.

I guess I got a bit augmentative there. Sorry for that.

I would like to see the Cooke permit denied too. It seems that DNR could do it, WDFW could do it, and possibly a federal agency could do it. In hte end all that matters is that one is able to do it.

I think WDFW gets a bad rap because the "manage" the fish. Most people seem to think that any issue with fish is therefore their problem. In this case, it's DNR who manages the lease. It seems like they should be the first to deny the permit.

Go Sox
cds

 

[dustinchromers]

I guess I got a bit augmentative there. Sorry for that.

I would like to see the Cooke permit denied too. It seems that DNR could do it, WDFW could do it, and possibly a federal agency could do it. In hte end all that matters is that one is able to do it.

I think WDFW gets a bad rap because the "manage" the fish. Most people seem to think that any issue with fish is therefore their problem. In this case, it's DNR who manages the lease. It seems like they should be the first to deny the permit.

Go Sox
cds

Fair enough. My apologies if I returned fire. We agree on this. I'm not in the dark as to the difficulty wdfw faces in managing fisheries. It is literally likely the hardest state to manage given many factors. It's also easy to have the answers from the peanut gallery. This one seems simple. Yet many things seem simple on the outside.

 

[Salmo_g]

I'm surprised WDFW is administering the EIS process for this permit. WDFW's authority is limited to issuing a "fish transfer" permit, which mainly ensures that the fish being transferred to the net pens are disease free - at the time of inspection and transfer. DNR is the main permitting agency because DNR leases state tidelands, marine, and lake waters to various uses, including aquaculture. And DNR's over-riding consideration factor has always been returning revenue to state coffers. Protecting the natural environment while doing so is a relatively new constraint on DNR's work. And DOE's authority is related to protecting water quality. Denying permits is really not very high on the list of authorities possessed by any of the three state agencies.

 

[JS]

Who will pay for the lawsuit if they deny a permit? The reason for permitting would likely be that they can't afford not to.

The constant bad mouthing and anger towards wdfw creates the bad management, not vise versa.

Go sox,
Cds

Nah, that is off base. I never heard WDFW badmouthed at all until the mid-2000s when they started shifting their manangement priorities. (bad example, thanks Salmo)

 

[Salmo_g]

Nah, that is off base. I never heard WDFW badmouthed at all until the mid-2000s when they started shifting from policy to politics (e.g eliminating predator hunting with dogs, among other things).

WDFW didn't shift policy to politcs (sic, because policy is politics BTW), or more accurately, shift from technically based wildlife management to politically based management. It was a citizen initiative in 1996 that banned hound hunting. It wasn't WDFW's idea. We should limit our criticism of WDFW to the bad decisions it actually makes, not decisions it doesn't make.

 

[JS]

Point taken, I was misinformed on that particular issue.

 

[JS]

My point being that the poor management came before the criticism.

 

[GeorgeV]

Nah, that is off base. I never heard WDFW badmouthed at all until the mid-2000s when they started shifting their manangement priorities. (bad example, thanks Salmo)

I don't mean to be insulting, but, how long have you been active locally hunting and fishing? I'm a geezer, I've been an active hunter and fisherman for about 63 years. I've always heard the WDFW criticized. I quit steelheading in the lower Cedar in the early 70's, due to complainers, their skill level was the problem. The WDFW has to deal with being the smallest western state with the most people (except California) also the fastest growing state, and everybody wants to be outdoors. Besides a wildlife (not just game) management problem, they have a people management problem, also EVERYBODY is an expert. Funding the work that needs to be done is a huge problem, fewer hunters and fisherman = fewer dollars. More dollars from the general fund are needed. Sometimes the best fix is not attainable. Some people complained in the early 60's about so few elk north of Ellensburg, now many complain about too many elk. Ya can't make everyone happy, BUT, don't yield to negativity.