Wildlife Director Seems Victimized By Political Tactics

No matter how hard sportsmen try to rescue fish and wildlife management from the morass of politics, one foot or another is always stuck in the mud.

Dozens of urgent issues are poised with dire consequences for the survival of critters ranging from sage grouse to king salmon.

Yet the only wildlife issue to ignite the interest of some Washington legislators in the recent session was Bern Shanks.

Perhaps “burn Shanks” is a better way to interpret the outcry to fire the Fish and Wildlife Department director.

Conservation groups are outraged at the political storm whipping up to oust the most open and accessible state wildlife chief in memory.

Shanks has been called on the carpet for his announcement late in the legislative session that his Fish and Wildlife Department faced a revenue shortfall of up to $17 million by next June.

Like nearby Idaho and Oregon, Washington is struggling to make up for sudden declines in hunting and fishing license sales, which make up the bulk of the wildlife agency’s annual budget. Unlike Oregon and Idaho, Washington’s license sales accounting system is antiquated.

The extent of Washington’s projected shortfall shocked everyone, including Shanks.

But should he be fired?

No, said state Senate majority leader Dan McDonald and Sen. Bob Oke, Natural Resources and Environment chair.

“While the department’s fiscal problems are disturbing,” they said in a statement, “we are convinced that replacing the director at this time would create more turmoil in the department and afflict additional harm to natural resources issues.”

A press release endorsed by leaders of 16 wildlife conservation groups supported Shanks. Groups ranging from the Washington Hunters Association to the state Audubon Society office called for an open study of the shortfall before making hasty decisions on Shanks’ future.

Two Washington Fish and Wildlife commissioners - John McGlenn and Kelly White - boycotted a recent meeting, preventing a quorum and an opportunity for three other commissioners to muster a vote and can the director.

Shanks said heat over the budget shortfall is a smoke screen for groups disgruntled with the tough conservation stance in his wild salmonid policy.

“The speed, intensity and ferocity of the opposition was clearly among the people who were upset with me in development of the policy,” he said in an interview this week.

Shanks said pressure on commissioners comes from legislators, lobbyists and interest groups who support the traditional way fish are divvied and harvested.

Here’s the stinky part.

No one on the commission will explain why they want to fire the director.

“All I can say is that there’s more to this than the budget,” said Dean Lydig, a commissioner from Spokane. “I personally don’t think it has anything to do with the salmon issues. Not one person from a tribe or commercial fishing organization has tried to pressure me to fire Shanks.”

A few days of snooping into the internal rumblings produced little more than rumors. For instance:

Pressure from Democrats and the governor’s office forced department deputy director Dirk Brazil to resign after the legislature failed to approve former Congresswoman Jolene Unsoeld for reappointment to the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Seems that Brazil confided to Republican legislators that Unsoeld had been a distracting meddler. The same political players say Shanks should fry, too.

Gov. Locke is purposely stalling to nominate people for three vacancies on the commission in an effort to weaken the panel and allow it to self-destruct. He’d love to have the power back to hire and fire the wildlife director.

The commission has too many responsibilities to be running at less than full participation. If it doesn’t fizzle on its own, Locke is in a good position to give commercial fishing interests more power on the commission. When three commission terms expire at the end of this year, the guv will be able to appoint six seats on the nine-member panel.

Betty Buckley, a demoted aspirant for a deputy director position, is said to have leaked news of the budget shortfall to several commissioners before Shanks could get an official report assembled. This enraged some commissioners and legislators, who accused Shanks of trying to hide the shortfall.

These rumors are interesting but not necessarily enlightening.

What the Fish and Wildlife Department needs is a good sex scandal. Something really preposterous that no one would talk about on the record.

If Shanks were accused of making advances to a salmon, at least there would be a reason for wildlife politics to smell so fishy.

You can contact Rich Landers by voice mail at 459-5577, extension 5508.

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: No duplicity on budget, Shanks says Bern Shanks is about the only person in Olympia willing to talk candidly about political pressure to remove him as director of the Washington Fish and Wildlife Department. “The revenue shortfall is potentially serious, but we’ve moved quickly to address it and reduce it to $2.5 million,” Shanks said this week. “It was my budget guy who caught it when it was still only 1 percent of the agency’s total. The shortfall is not in spending but in revenue. “I think the commissioners failed to appreciate that I ordered the report done as soon as the potential for the deficit was recognized. They felt I was trying to hide something from them, when that wasn’t the case at all.” “Clearly I have worked hard at putting fish first. We have a much stronger conservation message for the department during my time than under previous directors.” That message is difficult for some political interests to swallow, he said. “A lot of people think we can fix the salmon problem and keep operating the way they have, letting other people change their ways,” Shanks said. “The reality is that we all have to change our behavior and spread the sacrifice of salmon recovery to all of us.” - Rich Landers

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Rich Landers The Spokesman-Review