DFG renamed

[aaron]

Dept of Fish and Wildlife, interesting move. Found the news on a ski blog as apparently they're trying to appeal to a broader spectrum of outdoorsman and conservation minded folks. Makes sense as they need all the support they can get.
http://flyfishing.about.com/b/2012/10/07/california-department-of-fish-and-game-undergoing-name-change.htm

[Darian]

I saw an article on this in a recent issue of California Fly Fisher I believe. I had mixed emotions about this as frequently a name change can reflect changes in policy direction, mission, etc. I guess time will tell....:|

[winxp_man]

The original name seems to have worked just fine all these years. My opinion a waste of money that could have been spent on real issues!

[Mike O]

change names to focus more attention away from "Game", and more towards "Wildlife"....is this where hunting takes it in the shorts, in the name of "conservation"?


And how much money is this name change gonna cost?

[winxp_man]

change names to focus more attention away from "Game", and more towards "Wildlife"....is this where hunting takes it in the shorts, in the name of "conservation"?


And how much money is this name change gonna cost?


How much...... Just think of everything that has DFG or Department of Fish and Game writen on it has to be reprinted. What makes me laugh even more is hat the Sacramento county court has stopped sending out ticket notices to save money. Now you see the state changing DFG to DFW and with little cost. Well someone will have to give up on saving state budgets because all the savings go to another idea that makes no difference.

If by know anyone the fishes or hunts in the state does not know what DFG does or is then you need to go back to school!

[ssy]

With HSUS taking over, all of our hunting and fishing rights will soon be a thing of the past.:-x

[left field]

^This is very true. Most people tend to think of the Humane Society as an animal welfare org, but in fact they are an animal rights org along the lines of PETA.

Despite their 100M budget they operate no shelters and give less than 1% of their money to shelters.

humanewatch.org has the straight skinny on the HSUS.

http://humanewatch.org/images/uploads/2010-02-23_HumaneWatch_NYTIMES.jpg

[OceanSunfish]

Unfortunately, the DFG has been confused with a conservation agency that should exist under a separately funded State Agency.

DFG is supposed to be a "hooks and bullets" agency that manages the state's fish and game.... partially funded by the collection of fishing and hunting licenses.

Studies of the Brown Pelican, et. al. which were funded by state fishing licenses should be conducted by a state agency created for the conservation of wildlife, habitat, etc.

Personally, I hate to see "game" replaced by "wildlife". DFG wardens should be on par with other state and local law enforcement agencies and CA should have a separate F&G court with prosecutors ready to jail poachers, etc.

IMO, the change to "wildlife" is a step in the wrong direction, but is explanatory due to the changing political landscape in our most populated metropolitan areas.

[Frank Alessio]

The Department is being Restructured with the following being given New Management roles:

Sierra Club

Humane Society

Nature Conservancy

Center for Biological Diversity.....

[Ralph]

It is easy to have a knee jerk reaction one way or another. Keep in mind, this directional shift was initiated in the 1990 Strategic Plan, and after 5 years of public and departmental input ratified by Boyd Gibbons in 1995. It has taken the Department only 17 years to implement the name change. I don't see any indication there is going to be a violent shift in priorities, we've been undergoing that shift for nearly two decades. The revised name only reflects the mission statement that was issued many years ago.

"The mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public"

[timmosazz]

Well I don't like it.
The four groups that frank mentioned to help manage the dfg worries me I have seen areas over the years that are fenced in and have been taken away from the public by theese groups. Do we really need to grow the size of the department to make it better? Yes I think so but not in this way. We need more warden in the field with support in the field.not more talking heads with some grandios idea of how great nature is without man.
As far as hearing that it has been being implemented over the last two decades, I believe it. Our resources in this state have been dwindling. More wardens with resources to enforce the laws. And help manage the public lands for public use. Not more tree hungers.
Just my humble opinion.

[Frank Alessio]

Wow Ralph good memory... Boyd Gibbons was appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson to replace Bontadelli.... Gibbons was a Lawyer and former Environmental Specialist... The Infiltration began long ago... Not all effects are visible right away but they are there all the same...

[aaron]

Ralph, any suggestions on where to read up on the overall shift you refer to and who all is involved in it. Thanks.

[Ralph]

Ralph, any suggestions on where to read up on the overall shift you refer to and who all is involved in it. Thanks.

This would be a good start: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/about/strategy/docs/1995-Strategic-Plan.html

[aaron]

Thanks Ralph

[Dave Neal]

Really good discussion on this topic, keep it up. I've been thinking a lot about this lately and what it may/may not mean?

Does this mean CA DFW is going to shift focus to unicorns, rainbows and butterflies?

A name/logo change usually means an update or re-focus of a mission statement. As long as anglers/hunters are comfortable with the mission statement of CA DFG...er DFW... then it's probably a non issue, many states use Wildlife instead of Game in their name.

I do feel strongly that citizens (sportsmen/women) need to stay engaged, vigilant, educated and proactive for the things that we value. I do agree there are several well funded organizations that will increase pressure and focus on limiting, outlawing, and generally discouraging hunting and fishing for their perceived ethical and moral (or whatever) implications. If you value the outdoor experience and the privilege to have the freedom to hunt and fish - please get involved and support organizations that protect and improve habitat, and/or protect our freedom to participate in fish and game activities... there are many... Trout Unlimited, CalTrout, Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, big game orgs, NRA, whatever, it's time and money well spent. Without a voice, we have no power in government decisions, regardless of their name.

[Darian]

Seems to me that no matter what the mission of DFG was/is it will always have trouble meeting it.

One of the many problems in any large organization is mission creep. In the case of DFG, the public, business, NGOs or politicos want DFG to expand into an area that is not in its interest area and doesn't quite fit the defined mission. Then there's overlap in responsibilities between agencies/departments even between the feds/states; each entity believes that it runs the whole show.

A number of audits completed by the the Legislative Audit Office and it's predecessor over the last several decades indicated that there were deficiencies in accounting for funds and management of property under its ownership and it's no secret that DFG is underfunded.

With all of those problems maybe a name change and some reorganization is needed to help change old perceptions of the department. Although as Ralph pointed out, its taken a long time to get here....

[aaron]

Good points and well said guys.

[Bryan Morgan]

Another pay by the Californian for no good reason. We will pay for it somehow. Might as well put a bullet train to no where. Oh wait were doing that!!

[bonish]

Keep in mind, this directional shift was initiated in the 1990 Strategic Plan, and after 5 years of public and departmental input ratified by Boyd Gibbons in 1995.

You aren't seriously connecting this "shift" to Boyd Gibbons and the Wilson Administration, are you? Gibbons, the former Deputy Interior Secretary under Nixon? The guy who's still shooting ducks and playing retriever games? Well, on second thought, maybe you do have something here. Perhaps having a thinned DFG as the enforcer of all things California Resources Code was a very strategic policy decision back then - and definitely not the brainchild of the environmental lobby.

CEQA and stronger environmental protection laws and regs were well under way by that time. Rather then create a new agency to enforce those protections, they were left to DFG. A whole slew of new duties on the department with insufficient resources to perform them. Hence, a reformed mission to explain all these new responsibilities with little funding, and a need to explain declining commitments to provide and preserve hook and bullet activities. Let's also not forget the responsibility of enforcing environmental laws creates tremendous financial pressure against taxpayer dollars through frequent and repeated litgation against DFG, errr.....DFW, that comes from both left and right.

But with the Cal Trout guy as Director now, fishing groups probably have the best opportunity they'll ever get to be heard from the top.

[Clark]

I think I can provide some background that might be helpful for those interested in this issue.

The name change comes from recently-signed legislation that was the culmination of a year-long effort by a large group of stakeholders, DFG, the Natural Resources Agency, and members of the public. This effort was put in motion by a bill, AB 2376 (Huffman, 2010), that required the Natural Resources Agency to develop a strategic vision for the department. California Fly Fisher did a story on it last summer when the project was just ramping up.

The following link is to the homepage of the project. If you want, you can spend hours watching/listening to meetings, reading reports, background information and public comments. It's all there.

http://www.vision.ca.gov/

The volunteer stakeholder group that did an immense amount of work on the project was made up of 52 people that represented interest groups including fishing and hunting, water and agriculture interests, local and state government, science, aquaculture, business, forestry, non-consumptive users, Native American tribes, landowners, marine resources, and game wardens. This group included representatives from Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, California Waterfowl Association, California Outdoor Heritage Alliance, The Sportfishing Conservancy, and the California Game Warden’s Association, to name a few. And yes, the group also had representatives from the Humane Society, Audubon California, and The Defenders of Wildlife. But to say these groups were or will be running the department is simply not true.

After this process was completed, the state Legislature took the recommendations from the strategic vision and drafted bills. Most of the language in the bills was directly tied to recommendations from the group, others were not. As far as the name change goes, the stakeholder group could not come to agreement on whether the name should be changed or not. In the end, it found its way into the bill anyway.

The legislation specifically says that the department is not required to update or change logos, signs, badges, or anything else until those items would normally be replaced. The major immediate expense would come from a website overhaul and other similar expenses.

The bills may change the name of the department, but they also do the following:

Streamline permitting processes, improve the department’s use of independent science, create an environmental crimes task force to facilitate prosecution of wildlife crimes, encourage intergovernmental coordination, nonprofit partnerships and use of credible science, extend benefits to fish and game wardens, allow for adjustment of fees for cost recovery, study the feasibility of upgrading the department’s electronic systems to track fish and game code violations, re-assign several hunting and fishing and other regulatory provisions from the Legislature to the Fish and Game Commission, authorizes the department to recoup its program and implementation costs from many fee-based programs, strengthens the wild and heritage trout program while improving the scientific management of trout hatcheries and appropriating $1 million for hatchery improvements.

These changes are in addition to many others that the department has already started putting in place such as creating a Science Institute within DFG to showcase and increase the good work the fish and game biologists and scientists do, and a related DFG "Climate College."

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Science/

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/Climate_and_Energy/Climate_Change/Climate_College/

As you can see, the name change is just one aspect of the strategic vision legislation. Lots of the other pieces will be very helpful for the department moving forward. The one that I particularly like is the requirement that the department put more emphasis on its wild and heritage trout program.

The new DFG director is a life-long fly fisherman and was most recently the California director of Trout Unlimited. He is very passionate about the state’s fish and wildlife and is extremely driven to make a difference at the department.

So, before we get too far ahead of ourselves and jump to conclusions about where the department is going because of a name change, I say we give them time to implement these changes. In the end, we just may end up with more well-rounded and effective fish and wildlife management agency here in California.

[aaron]

Knowledge bomb! Good stuff Clark, thanks!

[David Lee]

A sad and tragic situation .

D.~