PDA

View Full Version : Oregon's and Wasington's vs California's Dept of Fish and Wildlife priorities



STEELIES/26c3
08-07-2016, 03:06 PM
OREGON'S RECENTLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER:

ODFW Gets Melcher as New Director

The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission has chosen Curt Melcher to be the next director for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. The decision was announced during the Commission’s regular meeting in Salem. Melcher has served as ODFW Interim Director since September 2014.

Commission Chair Mike Finley and Melcher will meet to discuss the terms of his employment later this month.

Melcher was among three finalists being considered for the position following a national search for candidates. The other finalists were Edward Bowles, Fish Division Administrator, ODFW; and Krystyna Wolniakowski, former Director, Western Partnership Office, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

“We are very pleased at the prospect of having Curt as the new director and are confident he is the right person to lead this premiere fish and wildlife agency,” said Mike Finley.

The public was invited to attend a question and answer session with the finalists. A representative sampling of the questions were selected by the Department of Administrative Services, and the same questions were then asked of each of the candidates.

As director, Melcher would report to the Commission and manage a department with more than 1,100 employees, and a biennial operating budget of $345 million.

Melcher is a native Oregonian, who graduated from the University of Oregon with a B.S. degree in Biology. He has devoted 28 years of his career to the protection and management of Oregon’s fish and wildlife. Melcher has served as the Deputy Director for ODFW, accountable for all Fish and Wildlife programs leading over 1,100 employees. He was appointed the Interim Director in September 2014.

“I’m excited and humbled at the thought of this opportunity,” Melcher said. “It would be a great honor to lead the dedicated, professional staff at an agency that has so much to offer the State of Oregon.”

Additional background on Melcher can be found on the ODFW website at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/docs/ODFW_Director_Candidates.pdf.

Melcher would replace Roy Elicker, who retired in September 2014 after serving seven years on the job.

OREGON'S RECENTLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER:

Commission Selects Unsworth as New Director of WDFW

Dr. Jim Unsworth, deputy director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, was chosen as the new head of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission voted to select Unsworth after interviewing eight candidates for the director’s position in December and narrowing the field to four finalists. The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, announced its decision at a public meeting Jan. 9-10 in Tumwater.

Unsworth, who will replace Phil Anderson, formally accepted the job.

Commissioners said they sought a visionary leader with a strong conservation ethic, sound fiscal-management skills and the expertise to work collaboratively with the commission and the department’s constituents.

“After a thorough nationwide search, we’re confident Jim is the right person to guide the department through the many challenges that lie ahead,” said Miranda Wecker, chair of the commission. “His solid understanding of natural resource issues and strong leadership skills will be invaluable in the department’s effort to manage and protect the fish and wildlife resources that are so important to the people of this state.”

As director, Unsworth will report to the commission and manage a department with more than 1,600 employees, and a biennial operating budget of $376 million. His annual salary will be $146,500.

Unsworth, age 57, has spent more than 30 years in wildlife management with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and has served as deputy director for the agency since 2008. He previously held several management positions for the department, including wildlife bureau chief and state big-game manager.

Unsworth holds a bachelor’s degree in wildlife management from the University of Idaho, a master’s degree in fish and wildlife management from Montana State University and a doctorate in forestry, wildlife and range sciences from the University of Idaho.

“I’m thrilled at this opportunity,” Unsworth said. “I look forward to taking on the many exciting challenges that come with managing fish and wildlife in the State of Washington.”

Unsworth and his wife Michele have four adult children. He is an avid hunter and fisher.


CALIFORNIA/GOVERNOR BROWN'S RECENTLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER:


Peter Silva, 63, of Chula Vista, has been appointed to the California Fish and Game Commission. Silva has been president and chief executive officer at Silva-Silva International since 2011. He served as assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from 2009 to 2011, senior policy advisor at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California from 2005 to 2009 and vice chair at the State Water Resources Control Board from 2000 to 2005. Silva was deputy general manager at the Border Environment Cooperation Commission from 1997 to 2000 and served in several positions at the City of San Diego Public Utilities Department from 1987 to 1997, including deputy director for water utilities, assistant deputy director for the clean water program and civil engineer. He was a resident engineer at the International Boundary and Water Commission from 1983 to 1987. Silva was an engineer at the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board from 1982 to 1983, at the Otay Water District from 1980 to 1982 and at the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board from 1977 to 1980. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $100 per diem. Silva is a Democrat.

Is there any doubt that CDFW's priority is far from it's mission statement?

..."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."

STEELIES/26c3
08-07-2016, 03:13 PM
Not sure why the site won't allow me to edit my above post as I've never had a problem before...

When I click on "edit post" it shows a blank box where my text should be.

Anyway, the second header IN GREEN text above... should read; WASHINGTON'S RECENTLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER:

Rossflyguy
08-07-2016, 04:05 PM
It's greedy Ag running everything

STEELIES/26c3
08-07-2016, 06:09 PM
It's greedy Ag running everything

Yes indeed, but I must add...

It is important to distinguish between CORPORATE AGRICULTURE (Westland's Water District) and HOMEGROWN AGRICULTURE (like those whose 6th generation family farms are along the delta in places like Rio Vista and Hood), These farmers, like we anglers, oppose the tunnels which would actually de-water their farm lands.

I only bring this up because blanket statements risk giving folks who are unaware of the issues (about 99.9% of our populace) the wrong impression that those of us who oppose the tunnels are anti-farming.

The lobbying for increased water exports and the proposed twin tunnels have, in reality, less to do with farming, jobs, food, the US economy than the propaganda would have us believe.

It is about political power, commodity control and insuring that a very small minority of people may continue to grossly exploit a resource (which belongs to everyone and no one) for their own excessive financial gain.

I am a fiscal conservative and all for capitalism but unlike most of my ilk... I draw the line at profiteering from public trust resources, especially when to do so undermines, even severely degrades the health and welfare of our natural resources and at the same time infringes on the constitutional rights of other citizens to enjoy our public lands and waterways and resources therein.

Bill Kiene semi-retired
08-07-2016, 09:55 PM
Just like the Feds always stealing the Social Security funds, the State of CA will always steel from the fishing & hunting license fund.

I guess we are just to stupid to stop them.

Darian
08-07-2016, 10:17 PM
Well,.... I get that you're comparing qualifications/backgrounds of political appointees in three separate states. IMO, the motives/priorities of political appointees are not easily determined without seeing them in action. So, I'm not sure that political appointments made by other states and the CAF&G Commission are a valid measure of whether CADF&W is on mission or not. Priorities are related to mission/goals/objectives and are dictated by things such as available resources; budget is one example. CAF&G Comm oversees management decisions related to rules/regulations by DF&W, not internal management (e,g. mission statements).

Determining whether CADF&W is on mission or not requires measurement of work/accomplishments against the underlying goals/objectives; then comparing results to the mission statement.

tcorfey
08-08-2016, 12:16 AM
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

It is interesting that WA and OR chose candidates for DFG Commissioner with many years of experience in the management of wildlife while CA chose a candidate with many years experience in managing water delivery. This does not give you a good feeling about the way this is headed.

In an interview with The Sacramento Bee, Silva said he’s not a hunter or an angler but “respects everybody’s desires.” He said he brings substantial regulatory and water-policy experience to the commission.

So on the 5 member commission we now have:
A water regulator, a vineyard owner, a tribe member with experience in transportation and land use, a govenment relations guy & policy director for a state senator, and finally a union official and heavy equipment operator.

Sounds like we have 5 directors with zero experience in managing fish and wildlife? Good job Governor Brown.

I guess there is no one available that has any experience in the field of fisheries and wildlife management.

STEELIES/26c3
08-08-2016, 03:25 AM
Well,.... I get that you're comparing qualifications/backgrounds of political appointees in three separate states. IMO, the motives/priorities of political appointees are not easily determined without seeing them in action. So, I'm not sure that political appointments made by other states and the CAF&G Commission are a valid measure of whether CADF&W is on mission or not. Priorities are related to mission/goals/objectives and are dictated by things such as available resources; budget is one example. CAF&G Comm oversees management decisions related to rules/regulations by DF&W, not internal management (e,g. mission statements).

Determining whether CADF&W is on mission or not requires measurement of work/accomplishments against the underlying goals/objectives; then comparing results to the mission statement.

I disagree...

If you have busted pipes and your mission is to have them fixed, you hire a plumber not a car salesman. It is at least somewhat inherent that the salesman will be a better fit for a car dealership.

SURE! The salesman may or may not sell many cars if hired by a dealership and it is quite possible that a plumber with over 25 years experience as a plumber may not actually accomplish your goal of fixing your pipes should you hire him/her....

BUT, there is a much greater likelihood that it will happen.

I question the integrity of an agency whose mission statement speaks to management and protection of natural resources but whose appointments to the Fish and Game Commission by our governor are not (by education, training and work experience) qualified to do so.

It is just so obvious that the commissioner appointments (as discussed in other threads and reiterated in this one by tcorfey) were chosen not based on their knowledge of ecology, wildlife/fisheries biology, and other subjects necessary for accomplishing the objectives as outlined in the CDFW mission statement but because of their expertise in civil engineering, law, public utilities, water regulatory policy and management and politics, all subjects of interest to someone trying to engineer the most expensive and farthest-reaching water grab within our state since Hetch Hetchy...

Yes, everything is inextricably intertwined as some famous naturalist once said, but C'MON MAN! Governor Brown made these appointments clearly to leverage his BDCP/Ca Water Fix/Twin Tunnels agenda. By reconstructing the agency to suit his needs, he now has a strong political advocate, even emissary (in CDFW) one he can now more easily manipulate and one whose credentials and credibility will go unchecked by most.

The science points to water exports as the lead cause of our diminishing fisheries in the post-dam era and yet, not once, not twice but three times, there has been a movement to ignore the science and place the blame largely on predation by introduced species. The same coalition which filed a lawsuit against CDFG (in 2008) and then convinced the F&G Commission to propose regulation changes favoring mass reductions in striped bass populations (in 2011) is now at it again (in 2016) this time adding black bass to the mix.

This resurrection of the proposal always seems to follow some small victory by opponents of the tunnels...
It is one of many recurring policies which seem to point out that CDFW makes decisions or seeks to effect policy changes not based on its sound, biological research nor on empirical data but rather on political pressure exerted against it by Governor Brown and his cronies (Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, Westland's Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California).

JayDubP
08-08-2016, 09:19 AM
Unfortunately, most state Commissions are made up of politicians and whose technical expertise or experience in that specific field tends towards the administrative and not the operational.

Look at the State Lottery Commission or the State Transportation Advisory Commission as prime examples of a commission full of political appointees and people who have made a career out of being on government committees.

Some Commissions like the PUC and the State Water Advisory Board actually have members with considerable applicable experience. The CA Alcohol Beverage Control is run by current and ex-police with almost all of the management being long time ABC employees who have moved up from the ABC ranks, so they operate in a real-world environment.

There are a considerable number of people whose career is sitting on state commissions or advisory boards. several years go there was an article about someone who was on 7 different CA boards/commissions or advisory panels-- and who had a total income of over $500,000 a year from all those.

Darian
08-08-2016, 03:53 PM
Conspiracy theories abound in this thread but, just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're paranoid. :cool:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but it sounds like you're making a case that water exports are the entire issue with decline of Delta fisheries/POD. In truth, there're many more problems contributing to the declines mentioned; water exports being only one. DFW, environmental NGO, federal fisheries agencies and some Delta comm all have scientific reports, surveys, etc., concerning this. Read the article scientific paper on "Predation" posted in another thread.

DFW AND the DWR project teams have mountains of scientific information supporting the tunnels project and almost every other subject related to Delta fisheries. I've read a lot of the project documents/comments (made a few myself), reports, media articles, watched videos and attended meetings where questions were raised about the tunnels project over the last two years. It certainly hasn't stopped the project so far.

Loading the SCWRCB and F&G Comm with appointees that are enablers is one example of the inertia of the tunnels project. The Governor is trotting out the big guns, now. I don't particularly like it but I'm not inclined to be so harsh in my judgment of the employees of the departments (state/federal) involved. "rossflyguy" recently posted that the tunnels project wasn't going to happen. I hope he's correct but I'm not holding my breath....

Now let's get back to how to oppose the proposed changes to the regs related to Black/Striped Bass. We can use the info in the document cited above about predation and other fisheries reports from DFW, UCD and the federal government to establish that attempting to reduce the impact of predation by Bass will probably not have the intended impact and may contribute to even more problems....

STEELIES/26c3
08-09-2016, 02:56 PM
No, I do not believe that increased water export is the ONLY adversity facing our fisheries but I do believe it is the most crucial.

Despite the complexity of the situation, an elemental truth would be that first and foremost, any plant or animal needs habitat in order to survive. Habitat loss is the primary reason for the decline of our fisheries. Initially, dams were the cause. Now, increased water exports and altered flow regimes are the primary cause of habitat loss. Most other contributing factors, toxicity, erosion, sedimentation, BOD, invasive plant species, salinification, lethal water temperatures, predation (to name a few) are all factors which are... wait for it.... accelerated by increased water exports and seasonal fluctuations in flows which are in turn unfavorable to the salmon, delta smelt and arguably all species of fish...

I saw and read MOST of the article on predation you posted the link to and it did not solidify the case against striped bass for the decline of salmon and delta smelt. In fact, it posed more questions about cause/effect than answers and in some cases it even challenged the premise that predation by striped bass is a leading cause for the decline of chinook salmon and delta and longfin smelt.

I'm not impressed with any scientific studies, research, projects, findings, information put out by DWR.

I have met and spoken with many of their PR and research personnel and I have been largely unimpressed.

I truly believe their jointly-sponsored spawning gravel restoration project on the American River is nothing more than a 'going through the motions', 'feel good' facade. Basically, a PR move that also fulfills their obligation to do SOME-thing to mitigate for what they helped to destroy...

And most importantly, it is yet another way to circumvent the root cause of the problem (water exports and untimely fluctuations in flows which are unfavorable to spawning, successful reproduction, outmigration and escapement).

Yes. indeed rolling out the big guns and I don't like it either (obviously) but please don't confuse my distrust of the appointments and and the appointees for an overall hatred for the agency/ies involved. I have worked for CDFG/W so I do know that public resource agencies are largely made up of employees who care more than most about the health and welfare of our resources held in public trust. In many cases, their hands are simply tied by multiple constraints (usually lack of funding and politics).

UCD, now THERE'S a great resource for sound science.

Are you going to sign up for their extension course "
"Understanding the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta: An Overview of Delta Governance and Regulation"The course will be taught by none other than CA DWR Senior Staff Council, David Sandino~

From Restorethedelta.org

Dear Mark,

UC Davis Extension is holding a class to educate Sacramento citizens on the Delta with an agenda of selling the public on the tunnels. We hope some of you can register for this class and share your knowledge of how this project will destroy the Delta. We will be busy at that time at the State Water Board.

We are extremely concerned that we now have an academic unit that is carrying a message for the Delta Tunnels, a proposed project that has not been permitted by the federal government and basically been failed by the EPA.

Even more alarming, to be able to attend the class, you have to pay a large $360 fee. We see that as a very undemocratic way to access information about a project in terms of water availability, water delivery, environmental impact, and cost. We have worked for 10 years to provide people with science and economic information on the Delta Tunnels and we have always done it for free or for at-will donations.

Darian
08-09-2016, 05:17 PM
Hmmm,.... I thought the article on predation produced evidence that Stripers probably weren't having the imagined impact on native species that authors of the proposed changes to the regs thought?? :confused: Did I misread it?? In any case, it was an article based on scientific research and the author concedes that more needs to be done on this subject. That seems reasonable to me. Just one more log to add to the fire. I do believe that the document could be used with more info to support opposition to the proposed changes to the regs, tho.

I'd like to take the extension course but, unfortunately, I'm running both my household and the household of an elderly/ill parent who lives in SoCal involving establishing a conservatorship. Time is at a premium for me right now. Time permitting. I plan on attending the meeting of the Commission later in August.

STEELIES/26c3
08-09-2016, 05:40 PM
Hmmm,.... I thought the article on predation produced evidence that Stripers probably weren't having the imagined impact on native species that authors of the proposed changes to the regs thought?? :confused: Did I misread it?? In any case, it was an article based on scientific research and the author concedes that more needs to be done on this subject. That seems reasonable to me. Just one more log to add to the fire. I do believe that the document could be used with more info to support opposition to the proposed changes to the regs, tho.

Sorry, sometimes you must think I forget were on the same team... Indeed, I was taking task with the argument that the predation article was a basis for the reg changes... but had not realized you were citing them as plausibly making the counter argument. So anyway, we are on the same page there...


I'd like to take the extension course but, unfortunately, I'm running both my household and the household of an elderly/ill parent who lives in SoCal involving establishing a conservatorship. Time is at a premium for me right now. Time permitting. I plan on attending the meeting of the Commission later in August.

I would also like to take the course but I would likely get kicked out for mouthing off and trying to push my agenda, hahaha. And, it would be against my principles to pay for the advancement of a project to which I am strongly opposed.

Yes, I did read the word UNBIASED in the course prospectus... but I do not believe it for a second~;)