Consolidate state patrol, fish and wildlife enforcement

The Director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is engaged in a new initiative to “strengthen the department’s relationships with communities, increase support for conservation and outdoor recreation, and help ensure WDFW programs and services meet the public needs.”

Called “Wild Future: A Partnership for Fish and Wildlife,” the initiative was introduced this fall at six sites across the state, in the director’s words, “to hear about what we are doing right, where we need to improve, and where we should focus our efforts and our funding over the next five to 10 to 20 years.” I attended the meeting in Spokane Valley.

Overall, the WDFW is doing a good job at addressing the department’s goals to “conserve and protect native fish and wildlife,” “provide sustainable fishing, hunting…recreational and commercial experiences,” “promote a healthy economy…,” and “build an effective and efficient organization.” However, by necessity, the staff has been taking on more responsibilities with fewer resources — a condition that inevitably leads to failed productivity and failed expectations. Such a situation cannot be sustained without a restructuring of priorities. Perhaps the following suggestions might help.

First, move the WDFW enforcement branch into the Washington State Patrol (WSP). Following the Oregon and Alaska experiment, a merger of the two state law enforcement agencies might be a win-win for both. The WSP would gain human and fiscal capacity, and a well-equipped force from WDFW, always a plus. WDFW enforcement will gain added leverage and field support for meeting the ever-increasing enforcement conflicts. Additionally, stand-alone budgeting would be more transparent and eliminate commingling of funds.

Second, right-size the department’s budget. About 60 percent to 70 percent of the WDFW budget comes from fishing and hunting fees and federal tax dollars, yet only a fraction of Washingtonians hunt or fish. In order for the department to meet the proposed Wild Future objectives and still address their stated goals, a right-sized budget is necessary. That will require an honest conversation about the size of the agency and the adequacy of its purse. For example, the non-enforcement side has been woefully underfunded for years. It is time to acknowledge that crisis funding and budgetary foibles on the part of the Legislature and special interests need to change (or at least be neutered), otherwise the important priorities, expectations and outcomes of the WDFW will fail.

Third, Washington is not well-positioned for salmon and steelhead recovery. As a policy, the WDFW needs to convince the public and state legislators that regardless of whether one chooses to believe in global warming or not, our waters are heating up and the current genetic populations of spawning salmon and steelhead cannot be sustained indefinitely. The impacts to tribes, local communities and commerce in general will be substantial. All state agencies should get ahead of this issue; working together closely with their regional partners.

Fourth, what is the WDFW policy on grizzly bear recovery? The expansion of grizzly bears into Washington needs to be assessed and monitored, and a strategic plan of action developed on what will surely be a quickly developing management conflict.

The WDFW, like so many other agencies, is reassessing how it can best serve the public by emphasizing communities, service and public needs. When addressing the department’s long-standing goals, most priorities have come from legislative mandates or WDFW-imposed budget constraints. However, the reason fish and wildlife agencies exist at all is to gain knowledge from fact-finding so that we do not completely destroy or mismanage the very resources we desire to conserve. Revisiting goal priorities, such as those in Wild Future, is useful if done by being better informed, better prepared and better organized.

I suggest WDFW review what resources it has, and what alliances will help provide needed services, then reset the state agenda. None of this can be done without full support from the state coffers, and action by policy makers in Olympia. But, if our legislators do not step forward on such an effort, then asking the public what they want may end up being nothing more than window dressing.

Howard W. Braham was formerly with the Office of Protected Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD, and NOAA’s National Marine Mammal laboratory in Seattle. He lives in Veradale.