|
Home
About
Hunting
Fishing
Contact
Links
Wilson
& Paes Outdoors Page
|
WHAT'S GOING ON AT DFG
AND HOW DO WE GET IT FIXED?
January 16, 2003....This
week we are running a special feature in place of our regular weekly
article. This is an actual letter written by a DFG employee to the
leadership of the department. It asks some tough questions that the public
has the right to have answers to! This should stir the anger in you to
demand answers to these questions.
I just hit the 30-year
mark with the DFG. To this day, fortunately, I have not been given an
ounce of direction with respect to my job. Thus, over the past three
decades, I have opted to apply my journalism beliefs to the job-that truth
is good and that the public has a right to know how its money and
resources are doing.
Among my task selections has
been one in which I have tried to open paths of both internal and external
communication--hoping through the internal process to further the cause of
conserving wildlife by bringing recognition and encouragement to the
people in the DFG who, good judgment aside, have devoted most of the prime
years of their lives to California critters.
Their successes, I have always
believed, have depended in part on their own morale. They like to think
they're protecting wildlife from the onslaught of society, especially the
ready-mix mentality of California that writes campaign checks.
Many of these people invest 25
to 40 years in this effort. But, that's their problem. You and your fleet
of imported supporters are, on the other hand, transients, mostly
indistinguishable from your political predecessors. You come and then you
go; in your wake, the devoted professionals within the DFG are left behind
to continue their pilgrimages despite messes often created by such things
as "directorates" and "leadership teams" (There's an
oxymoron in there somewhere.)
Well, this is going to be
long, so let's get to it. You might want to kick off your shoes. I have
decided, in the interest of employee morale--and, by extension, employees'
hard work on behalf of wildlife--to conduct an interview with you. I would
have called first, but I'm in a bit of a hurry. Send your responses to
DFG-All; I may or may not get a chance to read them.
Philosophies...During
an early MarCom committee meeting, one in which we were talking about the
DFG's latest failure to protect the Klamath River fisheries, one of your
deputies decided the committee needed a dose of administration reality.
So, he told the group, "You people need to understand: this governor
only likes people with money." He then went on to inform us that we
had to learn not to "step on the toes" of the 2% with money and
access to the governor's office and that, accomplishing that, we would be
permitted to deal with the "other 98%" who might be having some
sort of impact on wildlife. That the 2% are probably doing 98% of the
damage to wildlife habitat didn't come up. What are your feelings about
this approach to protecting California wildlife? How has this been a
factor in your management of the DFG over the past four years? Do you
still want DFG personnel to shy away from dealing with the 2%?
Speaking of your deputies, I
am curious about a particular Region 1 event involving the FERC
re-licensing of a small hydro project on a Shasta County stream--Old Cow
Creek, I think. Anyway, during the region's process of reviewing the hydro
owner's application to take more water out of the creek, this same deputy,
circumventing the regional scientists working on the proposal, had contact
with the hydro owner, promising him, among other things, that there would
be "no listing issues" with respect to threatened and endangered
species (there are three state/federal listed species in that drainage).
Worse, the region was prevented from making the FERC deadline for
comments, thus temporarily giving up its standing in the relicensing of
the project (other government agencies came to our rescue,
embarrassingly). According to my media contacts, the hydro owner is some
sort of Maryland Democratic Party fund raising guru.
Let's switch to salmon, sort
of. Cleverly, your staff and the Fish and Game Commission recently
declared that Coho salmon in the north "warrant" listing as a
threatened species. But, as near as I can tell, the species was NOT
actually listed. The implication your office worked hard at making was
that Coho were listed, but they were not. Instead, there is a recovery
plan with a large committee of "recoverers" whose bulk alone
pretty much assures endless meetings and not much recovery.
Finally, a couple of
questions. What was the motivation for sidestepping the clear evidence to
list? And, if one species can be "not really listed" in
deference to a large, bulky committee, why not every plant and animal on
the T&E list? Why one and not all? I think I know why, but many of the
career people stuck in thankless DFG jobs might not know. How about
explaining this? How about a news release that makes it clearer, rather
than muddier, what the commission actually did?
So, would the foregoing be
good examples of staying off the toes of the 2%? How do you feel about the
way these issues were handled? What's the lesson from these episodes for
other DFG employees? These first three items would lead one to wonder what
your philosophies are regarding the DFG's role as principal guardian of
California wildlife. What are they?
Everyone knows the state has
sacrificed a high percentage of its once rich fish and wildlife resources
to human invasion over the past 150 years and that it has only a fraction
of its original resources left. In your estimation, what percentage of the
remaining fraction must be sacrificed in the coming decades in the
interest of a "growing economy"?
What should you or the next
transient do, if anything, in defense of the plants and animals? Even
better, can you give any examples of your "team" taking strong
action on behalf of wildlife in full public view over the last four years?
Organization...There
has been much discussion about the current structure of the DFG. Former
director Schafer, now mucking with the Arizona environment, tossed the
department into a blender and "reorganized" it into what most
Fish and Game people to this day cannot, to save their lives, describe.
(In her first headquarters briefing after taking the reins of the DFG,
Schafer interrupted the briefing to say, "Hold It. I don't want to
know about all that stuff. I want to know where my Army is, where my Navy
is, where my Air Force is." That's who rearranged the deck chairs.)
The old DFG structure worked
well; everyone knew whom to contact on what subject. We had fishery
biologists, wildlife biologists, fish culturists, wildlife and fish
habitat specialists, game wardens and-least numerous of all-environmental
specialists (oops, scientists). Now, it appears that, in addition to your
extremely top-heavy headquarters roster, the numbers have flip flopped. In
the old, workable system, regional environmental review personnel
extracted critter information from the appropriate field professionals,
including wardens, and wrote DFG comments. It worked great. Until about
six years ago. Today, we have timber harvest personnel, for example, who
specialize. Yes, one will review a plan for herps; the next one will check
the same plan for herbs. Herps and herbs; herps and herbs. Kinda gives you
goose bumps, doesn't it? (If the DFG can afford a "herb"
ecologist, why not a pronghorn antelope biologist?)
In spite of the monstrous size
of the "habitat conservation" branch/division, DFG people still
fail to set foot on the actual sites of 75% of the timber cutting plans.
And, of course, the DFG examines ZERO timber harvest plans on federal land
(but, that's only half of Region 1, so no problem).
Here's a recent HC
accomplishment. Priorities were being established by the regions for
dealing with T&E species. In our region, these "new agenda"
people completely ignored one of the most endangered species in
California-the Shasta crayfish-in sending its priority list to Sacramento.
What did they list as their top three species? Two plants and a butterfly.
Will you be looking into that? Some of this same bunch also attempted to
stop Cantara's funding of the trout studies on the upper Sacramento River;
and, recently, threatened the City of Redding that "we'll sue you and
you won't have a project" over wetland habitat--on the basis of a
plant that is found in dozens of counties. But, no crayfish, no sir--that
species is in the province of the "old" Fish and Game sections
and cannot be recognized under the open warfare within the disorganized
DFG.)
This takes us to the next
question: why, in the name of anything even remotely sensible, didn't you,
upon your appointment four years ago, immediately put Humpty Dumpty (DFG)
back together again? Why did you embrace the mess Schafer left behind? Why
didn't you put fisheries people back in fisheries; wildlife people back in
wildlife, etc.? It would seem you don't care--do you?
With respect to the re-org
from hell, wouldn't this be a good time to undo much of it, given the
state budget's abyss? How about starting by eliminating the pointless
Region 6 from the structure? For 50 years or more, the wildlife-deficient
southern California area (the Sierra's still pretty good, of course)
functioned just fine under the direction of the Region 5 office in Long
Beach. At a time the wildlife resources had significantly been supplanted
by tile roofs and parking stripes, Schafer split Region 5 into two
regions. Two sets of everything. Elimination of that over-bureaucratized
piece of California by dropping Region 6 would save lots of
money--especially given that the regional manager and immediate staff
continue to pay rent in Long Beach while the rest of the region's people
have been uprooted and moved to Chino Hills. (How efficient is that?
What's the explanation for paying rent in both places?) Are you aware
that, among the many sensible recommendations that came from DFG people
during the Schafer massacre, was one calling for consolidating the state
into three east-west regions? With today's electronics, what's the need
for seven field headquarters (and fewer wardens and biologists in the
process)? If this is not a good idea, how about telling DFG-All just why
it isn't?
As long as we're on the
subject of the state budget black hole, how about a full disclosure of the
names, salaries and duties of each and every one of the DFG people who are
employed at CEA levels and above, including all of your
"leadership" team members--you know, deputy directors, assistant
deputy directors, junior deputy directors, wannabe deputy directors, etc.?
In addition, many of us would like to know how many DFG personnel work
within the city limits of Sacramento. Will you supply that? Further, what
percentage of DFG salary costs go to those people within the Sacto limits?
I know that all of the grunt level people in the DFG would be interested
in seeing such a report. Are you willing to give everyone such a report?
If not, why not?
This also leads into a
subject of money. I understand that some of your bean counters have
concluded that they now have carte blanche (through new legislation?) to
spend DFG money from any source on any subject. Can you explain this? Does
this mean you might be using fishing/hunting license revenue for such
things as commenting on the herbs in a timber harvest review, for example?
How does this fit with one of the DFG's traditional roles to serve one of
its traditional constituents, the wildlife recreationist? Are you willing
to provide a complete, and understandable, explanation of just where the
money is coming from and where it is being spent within the DFG?
More specifically, how about
an update on two areas of particular interest to many of us--the
employment of attorneys and interpreters. An interpreter, as you may know,
is a leftover job title from the old Wildlands Program, an abject failure
of the Bontadelli administration more than 10 years ago. The program went
under, but--surprise, surprise--the interpreter jobs have remained behind,
year after year. How about an explanation of what these people do and how
it helps the DFG get its message to California's 34 million people? For
openers, I refer you to the last memo I wrote during my abbreviated
presence on the MarCom committee--it outlines months of activities of one
interpreter (note: I know of one that for years showed up at the assigned
office an average of about five hours a month). It is safe to say that
information officer work reaches millions upon millions of Californians
year in and year out; interpreters reach...well, no one knows. Is there
any accountability when it comes to those jobs? How, in your opinion, is
the value of such a job assessed, compared, for example, with that of information
officers?
Over the last several years,
there have been numerous job openings and exams for interpreters and none
for information officers. What does this say about your commitment to an
accurate flow of information to the public? Which leads, perfectly, to a
similar subject of DFG attorneys. We had not one attorney on staff during
my first dozen or so years with the DFG (the AG's office handled Fish and
Game legal matters). Now, I believe, we have something like 19. If we
count you, it's a gross. How about a report on what each of these people
has done over some period of time--the past 45 days, let's say? Tell the
DFG working class how wildlife are better off with these people on staff.
Perhaps describe what kind of wildlife losses there might have been
without this herd of attorneys. How many lawsuits/injunctions have been
filed over the past four years on behalf of wildlife or wildlife habitat?
Patrol...Wildlife
protection is the DFG's anomaly. Wardens, many with college degrees and a
penchant for the real world of wildlife, ply the hinterlands sans any DFG
game plan and do their best to make Fish and Game visibly present and
protective of wildlife. Most of them. Others draw the pay, enjoy the
protections of a "safety" job and rarely venture into the field,
save to take a class in computer science or get a real estate license. The
word on the street is that you and your circle of supporters will be
slashing warden positions during this latest state budget debacle. If the
purpose is to save money, are you willing to take a look at upper level
positions? Field wardens enjoy safety retirement benefits and on-the-job
injury benefits that others don't because they fairly regularly confront
people with guns, for example.
On the other hand, there are
"patrol" people feeding at the same trough for whom the biggest
danger in life is the possibility of having to attend a staff meeting.
Some, for example, teach college or university classes during the same
hours the DFG is paying them to be patrol personnel-and drive their state
vehicles to and from the classroom. Can Fish and Game afford this? How do
you feel about it? (You might take a look at the pay level of hunter
education people; does the public need to shell out $65,000 for what is at
best a part-time position?)
In the same budget arena,
last spring you slashed something like 80 DFG jobs, selecting almost
exclusively vacant positions rather than taking on the hard task of
prioritizing department jobs and shifting people accordingly. One of
those, I believe, was the headquarters fishing regulations coordinator
position. That person's job has always been to assemble the biennial
package of "regs" that goes before the commission. Many DFG
people feel fishing and hunting have been, in the words of one biologist,
"marginalized" to a point of insignificance. Using that one job
as an example, how did you justify eliminating it? Is fishing--except when
angling for the browns planted at Blue Lake--out of the loop of your
administration? Will you explain that one to all the good DFG folks out there?
Here's another example. I
understand that a Sacramento position designed to coordinate DFG use of
millions of dollars from the Sport Fish Restoration Act also was
eliminated in your slash-and-burn cutbacks of last spring. How about
explaining that one? How can you, in one breath, whine about the lack of
brown trout in Modoc County's Blue Lake and in the next breath approve the
destruction of such a key fishing-related job?
Cantara...In contrast,
there's Cantara. How would you feel about an audit? Not a balance sheet
audit designed to compare income and expenses. I'm talking about a
thorough examination of where the settlement money was spent and what the
public has gotten for that $14 million. Most people would agree that the
dollars used for post-spill monitoring and management of the trout
comeback couldn't have been better spent. The DFG now has unprecedented
data tracking the return of a wild rainbow trout population from zero to a
full population within a blue-ribbon habitat. Beyond that, the
expenditures are fuzzy, at best. It is clear that the resources have
recovered completely on their own-without a flicker of help from man. So,
what are the expenditures for?
A former regional
manager/Cantara Trustee Council president told me once, "We have to
find jobs for all those people at Cantara." I asked, "Why?"
He smirked, but didn't answer--as if my question were absurd. What was
absurd was that this department made a commitment to that Cantara staff
that they would all be hired as permanent, full-time DFG employees. What
happened to the competitive Civil Service process? The circumstances were
that, year in and year out, Cantara staff were making recommendations to
the council for annual budgets that included their own employment. Most of
them now occupy permanent regional positions. What do you suppose the odds
of that happening would have been in an openly competitive process? Let me
help you with the math. If, for example, the chances of one of the Cantara
staff landing a permanent Region 1 position were, say, 1 in 15; and, if
there were a dozen such people seeking permanent positions; then, the odds
of all 12 beating out all other competitors would be 1 in...well, my
calculator won't go that far; just say somewhere in the trillions).
I'm wondering-were there
people who applied for Region 1 openings that, unbeknownst to them, were
already committed to Cantara staff? (Perhaps the State Personnel Board
should peer into this.) There also has been a lot of money funneled to the
DFG, water quality and Forest Service projects that should have been
handled through their own budgets. For fun, look into the Cantara funding
of its "volunteer coordinator" position; and, the River
Exchange. Are you willing to examine how the public's money has been, and
is being, spent?
MarCom...I'd like to
jump back to the MarCom subject (i.e. the marketing/communications
"plan" development of a couple of years ago). You'll recall,
that is the one in which the DFG paid $95,000 to a "consultant"
from Denver to head a DFG committee in the development of a MarCom plan. I
have already brought to the DFG's attention the sites of ordinarymagic.org
and the Gill Foundation, so let's go to the subject of the plan
itself.
Produced well after its
deadline, this document opens with this sentence: "The plan purpose
and mandate was to craft a strategy,...." So, here's my first
question: do you think if we had tossed in another few thousand, maybe
kicked the pay to six figures, perhaps we could have gotten an opening
that was grammatical? The rest of that first paragraph reads, "and a
process by which it can be implemented, that will enable the California
Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to speak with one clear, consistent
voice to our key audiences in a way that fosters public awareness of the
importance, diversity and public benefit of our work, and that enables
customer friendly access to our products and services and the natural
resources of which we are stewards." Any idea what that says?
How do you feel now about the
$95,000 dished out to that particular consultant--and what the return to
the DFG has been? Would you do it again? Can you tell everyone listening
out there just how this "plan" has improved communications to
date and how much more it will improve things in the future? (I know the
budget abyss pretty much makes the answer to the latter question moot;
but, remember, MarCom sucked up all that money and the ink was dry on the
"plan" well before the budget crisis hit.)
The last time I looked at the
MarCom plan, it had no references to hunting. Can you tell us why? I
remember bringing up the subjects of both hunting and fishing during my
brief tenure on the committee--and getting no commitment to include either
one in the plan. Are these "new" people trying to wipe hunting
off the DFG agenda? Is that ok with you? Speaking of which, how about also
giving us an update on how many other contracts have been "won"
by that consultant over the last four years and for how much money? What
have these various contracts accomplished? How are the state's wildlife
resources better off as a result of those expenditures?
Budget/Structure...Back
to structure for a moment. We know the blood is flowing now, thanks to the
mismanagement of the state budget in the past two years. I hear that
people in the DFG are being asked to cut up to 40% of their personnel. The
heart and soul of Fish and Game, whether you want to face it or not, lie
at the field level where biologists, wardens, habitat specialists, fish
culturists and clerical people labor hard for wildlife-and do so at the
point where the wildlife meet the public. In recent years, thanks to
Schafer's disorganization of the DFG, there have been wholesale expansions
of "jobs" involving such things as timber harvest review and, my
favorite, "habitat conservation planning." An even bigger set of
smoke and mirrors would seem to be the beloved NCCP. How about a detailed
explanation to the troops of how that process is saving and/or rebuilding
"wildlife" in California? Tell us how many people work on it,
where they are located, how much money is spent on it and what specific
actions they have taken that assure the protection of all wildlife, not
just listed species.
Tell us why you are
considering massive budget cuts at the regional/field level in traditional
wildlife and fisheries areas (these field biologists for years have done
perfectly well protecting all other species, too, in spite of what your
imported advisers tell you) and whether you plan to do us all a favor and
dump most of the Habitat Conservation Planning and NCCP jobs in the
process. This should be good.
Advisers--Among the many
disruptions of your administration has been this plethora of
"advisers" that encircle you and that you are spending the
public's money on. Let's talk about one-the awesome science adviser. First,
why did you feel the need to hire a science adviser? On its face, the act
would seem to suggest that the dozens of career, professional scientists
within the DFG-many, believe it or not, with hundreds of hours of hands-on
experience with varieties of critters-couldn't be trusted. It would appear
that field information was to be filtered to meet some new agenda. What is
that agenda? In announcing this science adviser appointment, you said you
wanted to employ "good science." Well, let's see how that has
worked out.
Not long after
arriving-and, of course, becoming thoroughly familiar with all the knotty
details of the hundreds of species of fish, plants and terrestrial
critters-the SA and staff decided we should stop the aerial trout plants
in all wilderness areas of California because of an inferred harm by trout
to lake and stream amphibians-in particular a couple of species soon to be
listed in the Sierra Nevada. Region 1 people, professionally insulted,
fought back, God bless them, and managed to get it through your Sacramento
fog belt that Region 1 didn't have any of those species in its wilderness
waters.
Some in your staff then tried
to substitute another frog and a salamander species, but that didn't work
either and soon the planes were back to dropping fish in some of the lakes
so people could catch them and enjoy themselves. It was a hell of a
battle, but sensibility prevailed. So, here's my question: now that
"good science" has fingered Central Valley farm pesticide drift
as the REAL cause for the decline of Sierra amphibians, what will you be
doing? Resuming air plants? Taking on the Long Beach-Glendale-Fresno lobby
and filing lawsuits against valley farmers? Speaking out on behalf of the
poisoned amphibians? Just what is your position?
How about we conclude this
interview with some final questions. What has been your goal and what
continues to be your goal for fish and wildlife of California? What should
DFG people do on behalf of the people of California when it comes to the
plight of the state's wildlife? How do you feel about the public's right
to know what is taking place within the Department of Fish and Game on a
day-to-day basis? Is it ok with you if DFG personnel openly keep the
public informed of Fish and Game activities and of the status of the
public's wildlife?
|
