Game Management Workshop on Public Involvement
Ellensburg, Washington - August 23, 2003
Talking Points for Dr. Jeff Koenings, WDFW Director

Thanks for coming today.

We are here today primarily to listen, to learn from you on how you think the Department can improve its public involvement processes.

Why? I believe complicated natural resource issues can only be addressed in a collaborative fashion and that happens only through communication. Those of you who know me know that when I became director almost five years ago, one of my major goals was to increase public involvement in Department issues, to make the processes leading up to our decision-making as transparent as possible with as much input as possible from people like yourself.

We stand on science being the framework of our resource management decisions! But, the best science in the world does little good if it is not communicated, understood and supported by the people who are affected by those decisions.

In turn, we believe resource decisions are better made once informed by input from those affected. While we still have some challenges in front of us to improve public involvement, I think we've made some significant progress in many areas.

First is the area of citizen advisory groups.

We've expanded the number of advisory groups working with the Department, with the interest of giving citizens a greater say - early on - in wildlife and fisheries issues.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, our Fish and Wildlife Commission adopted new waterfowl seasons. It was the first time the Commission has adopted waterfowl seasons after input was received from a newly-formed statewide citizen's advisory panel.

In fact, Don Kraege, our waterfowl manager, told commissioners when they adopted the new seasons that he expects the advisory panel to play an increasingly important role in the years to come in waterfowl issues.

Besides waterfowl, we've also created new citizen advisory groups for Land Management and Licensing Vendor issues, and are in the process of forming one for Upland Game. Other advisory groups are: sport fisheries, commercial fisheries, warmwater, steelhead, crab, shellfish and the North of Falcon process.

Question 1: Do they work and can they be improved?

Second, besides expanding citizen advisory groups, we've also tried to increase constituent accessibility to the Department's top managers. We've done this simply by making ourselves more available more often to listen to you and heed your ideas and advice.

I myself convened a series of Directors' Roundtable meetings across the state to meet with citizens, to talk about anything they wanted to discuss and bring them up to date on what I perceived to be the Department's main goals and objectives.

The meetings were attended not only by hunters and fishers and wildlife viewers, but by elected and appointed city and county leaders, business owners, farmers and many others whose lives are directly or indirectly impacted by the Department's decisions.

Many good ideas emanated from those meetings on issues ranging from how the Department managed its lands to how it dispenses recreational information. We were able to take many of these ideas and implement them, and that's part of the deal here. Are these efforts worthwhile, are they working?

Third, to improve and expand public involvement, the Department has also created a number of new information products during the past several years, and attempted to take advantage of new information technologies.

We have had good success, for example, in using the Internet to bolster interactive communications with constituents, to do surveys, to respond immediately to constituent questions, and to instantaneously deliver draft management proposals to constituents for their feedback.

I really expect the Internet to become an increasingly important public involvement tool in the years to come, and welcome your ideas on how we can further exploit this new and very efficient and exciting medium.

The bottom line is we will continue to strive to get better. In my view, all good management decisions stem from good public involvement. That is why I'm glad this meeting was organized today, and glad you showed up.

We need to know what is working and what isn't! The worst thing we can do as natural resource managers is to manage, to make decisions, in a vacuum.

Sometimes we in the natural resources profession think that if we do the science, and then make the policy call, that our job is done. That's being good at managing a resource, but when we do it that way we come across as arrogant and that perception is a recipe for disaster.

We owe it to our constituents to be as transparent and as inclusive as possible in the processes leading up to that final policy call, and we owe it to ourselves to listen to our constituents and learn from them before that policy call is made. That's being good at resource management.

It has been my experience that quite frequently it is the constituent who brings that crucial bit of information, or new idea, to the table that the resource manager needs to make the best possible decision he or she can.

My hope today is that we learn from you, that you give us new ideas and fresh perspectives on how we can improve our public involvement processes and, in the process, become better resource managers.

Again, we are excellent at doing the science that leads to managing a resource, but we're still learning the art of listening that leads to being a good resource manager.

We need your involvement, ideas and help on how to better communicate and thus involve the collaborative process.

Thanks for coming.

Back to index