# New dnr director



## benderdennis184 (29 d ago)

It was añnounced during Mike Avery live show last night that Shannon Lott is the new. DN director. Eichinger has been moved to eagle. No reason was given.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Help me out here. I don't know any of those names.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

benderdennis184 said:


> It was añnounced during Mike Avery live show last night that Shannon Lott is the new. DN director. Eichinger has been moved to eagle. No reason was given.


My buddy killed a cow elk during the December elk hunt and she showed up and examined the animal with another CO. Pretty good PR work on her part. I joined another buddy on his Elk hunt several years ago. When we were dragging it out of the woods, a CO was driving thru the area we were taking a break from dragging. Had no idea a two track was trail was so close to where he had killed his elk. He saw us of course and helped us get it to the road, in his truck and back to our truck.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Pretty late to the game with this one. Had a thread last week that went on and on and on about the new director.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

I am sorry. I did not see that thread and only heard about the new director Wednesday night on the show.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> Pretty late to the game with this one. Had a thread last week that went on and on and on about the new director.


Yea, that one sure went to a **** show in a hurry!


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Tilden Hunter said:


> Help me out here. I don't know any of those names.


Her maiden name was Hannah. She started with the agency as a part-time seasonal employee, prior getting hired as a wildlife techician and working her way up. Keep in mind that the Wildlife Division is still rife with employees that practice the good ole boy system of advancement, something I had hoped Dan Eichinger would rework during his tenure. Fisheries has been significantly revamped into a unit that is more performance driven, in terms of advancement.

She was the Deputy Diricetor for Wildlife, Fisheries and Forestry, reporting to Dan Eichinger who was the previous director. I have some email quiries still unresponded to. If I find out what actually drove this management reshuffle, I will send you a PM.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sparky18181 said:


> Pretty late to the game with this one. Had a thread last week that went on and on and on about the new director.


This one's better. We got a pic and I'd let her hand cuff me


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Cork Dust said:


> Her maiden name was Hannah. She started with the agency as a part-time seasonal employee, prior getting hired as a wildlife techician and working her way up. Keep in mind that the Wildlife Division is still rife with employees that practice the good ole boy system of advancement, something I had hoped Dan Eichinger would rework during his tenure. Fisheries has been significantly revamped into a unit that is more performance driven, in terms of advancement.
> 
> She was the Deputy Diricetor for Wildlife, Fisheries and Forestry, reporting to Dan Eichinger who was the previous director. I have some email quiries still unresponded to. If I find out what actually drove this management reshuffle, I will send you a PM.


It's a pretty good bet Whitmer is just pushing women up into higher posotions wherever there is an opportunity. It has been a common theme. Whitmer has appinted 2.5 times as many women judges than men in her tenure. In this instance she seems to have the resume to do the job. I don't have an issue with it.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

DirtySteve said:


> It's a pretty good bet Whitmer is just pushing women up into higher posotions wherever there is an opportunity. It has been a common theme. Whitmer has appinted 2.5 times as many women judges than men in her tenure. In this instance she seems to have the resume to do the job. I don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


That theme is nation wide. If they are the best person for the job, let them get it done.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

I’m happy to see someone from the Wildlife Division appointed as opposed to a paper pusher from a totally different governmental entity.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

DirtySteve said:


> It's a pretty good bet Whitmer is just pushing women up into higher posotions wherever there is an opportunity. It has been a common theme. Whitmer has appinted 2.5 times as many women judges than men in her tenure. In this instance she seems to have the resume to do the job. I don't have an issue with it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


That was my take on the announcement. Eichinger has "groomed" himself for this position, accumulating a resume that would enable him to ascend. My interactions with him have indicated to me his is keenly aware of the background political forces operating to influence environmental management decisions. Wildlife Division's resources, both from a personnel and financial standpoint have been largely directed at CWD mapping and containment. CWD is not ver" by any stretch of the imagination, but its risk and sequelae are better understood in Michigan. Mason recently offered testimony and perspective on current research of CWD at the last NRC meetings to the NRC. Consequently, Foresty has assurted their dominance within the agency. EGLE is the political hot potatoe, since it has the task of PFAS risk identifcation as well as oversight of many business and industry expansion efforts now focused on Michigan as the economy recovers from the pandemic. Add-in that much of what it does is water and air pollution oriented, a better fit for Eichinger's academic background.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

jatc said:


> I’m happy to see someone from the Wildlife Division appointed as opposed to a paper pusher from a totally different governmental entity.


Absolutely and you can bet that happens more often than not. I spent over 3 decades in state government employment. Seniority meant something thru 99% of my career. Experience meant the most as well as the interview process but seniority was the tie breaker. Not today. People complained about seniority being a bad system and to a degree it can be. The new system of NOT using seniority is worse. It allows staff with little experience in positions requiring exactly the opposite. Not just that but it allows supervisors doing the interviews to hire who they personally want in the position, not necessarily who aces the interview or is more qualified, (ie Good ole Boy system). The only problem with putting new people in positions where you won't know the outcome until you do is, they are there for the duration unless they really screw up. By that I mean, doing something unlawful or violating policy and procedure to the point it caused irreparable damage. Otherwise they are there till the governor is out. In this new directors situation, she is a current DNR employee and has been. While not a fan of our Governor, she at least didn't bring in "Outside resources" claiming they are much better than what the state has and that they have no trouble paying them double. Governor Rick brought in who he wanted and skipped over a lot of good qualified state employees that had that position coming from years of previous service. Looking forward to seeing what this new director gets done


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

So LGB, the better person that has less seniority should be kept on the bottom?
That is not how it works in the real world now days.
Sure, there is still a lot of good old boy stuff in private companies but if you work for them, it is on you.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

Chessieman said:


> So LGB, the better person that has less seniority should be kept on the bottom?
> That is not how it works in the real world now days.
> Sure, there is still a lot of good old boy stuff in private companies but if you work for them, it is on you.


No not at all. I'm not sure what exactly works best because the "Good ole Boy" system people always complained about having one up on the new system... seniority. The new system only has qualification besides the Supervisors choice. I've seen bad seniority choices made but it was a non-biased system. The best person for the job should be the only way of deciding. Not seniority and not the buddy system. Seniority SHOULD be the tie breaker if all other things are equal IMO. Why are vacations and leave based on seniority ? Why not let your buddy have deer season off over a 30 year employee ? The better (more qualified is how I'd put it) should always be the choice for a position. Unfortunately for all the years affirmative action was the tool used, we got the worse people for positions in this state. If employees were promoted based on that criteria, I think the outcome would be much different.


----------



## tdejong302 (Nov 28, 2004)

Political appointment to pad a ladies resume by Whitmer.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

tdejong302 said:


> Political appointment to pad a ladies resume by Whitmer.


Pretty much what happens regardless what the gender is.


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

Chessieman said:


> So LGB, the better person that has less seniority should be kept on the bottom?
> That is not how it works in the real world now days.
> Sure, there is still a lot of good old boy stuff in private companies but if you work for them, it is on you.


The problem with your statement is that "the better person with less seniority" isn't always the best person for the job...they meet some ambiguous criteria put in place to meet a diversity goal.

I saw it many times during my career, and no I'm not butt hurt over a promotion or job I didn't get...I saw what crap supervisors went through and wanted no part of it. I stayed in my lane.

I always thought "Content of character" was the best way to go whether it was in business or personal interactions. Sadly, that idea is gone in today's society.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

Craves said:


> The problem with your statement is that "the better person with less seniority" isn't always the best person for the job...they meet some ambiguous criteria put in place to meet a diversity goal.
> 
> I saw it many times during my career, and no I'm not butt hurt over a promotion or job I didn't get...I saw what crap supervisors went through and wanted no part of it. I stayed in my lane.
> 
> I always thought "Content of character" was the best way to go whether it was in business or personal interactions. Sadly, that idea is gone in today's society.


Unfortunately how does any employer know the actual content of somebody's character ? Have you ever worked with a guy or person in place of employment that was 180° different than they were off the clock ? Unfortunately that really shouldn't factor into it. All a real employer can go by is experience and the job that they did every day while they were working at that location. THAT'S the interview.


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

LGB said:


> Unfortunately how does any employer know the actual content of somebody's character ? Have you ever worked with a guy or person in place of employment that was 180° different than they were off the clock ? Unfortunately that really shouldn't factor into it. All a real employer can go by is experience and the job that they did every day while they were working at that location. THAT'S the interview.


Without going in to details or writing about specific incidents, I can just tell you factually that people were chosen for jobs because of diversity goals and this was long before diversity became the catch phrase it is today. Many times candidates that were as good or better were bypassed.

A "real employer" would do just as you explained, unfortunately it was my experience that my company often did not.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

Craves said:


> Without going in to details or writing about specific incidents, I can just tell you factually that people were chosen for jobs because of diversity goals and this was long before diversity became the catch phrase it is today. Many times candidates that were as good or better were bypassed.
> 
> A "real employer" would do just as you explained, unfortunately it was my experience that my company often did not.


100%


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

Craves said:


> Without going in to details or writing about specific incidents, I can just tell you factually that people were chosen for jobs because of diversity goals and this was long before diversity became the catch phrase it is today. Many times candidates that were as good or better were bypassed.
> 
> A "real employer" would do just as you explained, unfortunately it was my experience that my company often did not.


Yeah, it's been going on for years. It hurts us all.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

SEMichiiganConservation said:


> Yeah, it's been going on for years. It hurts us all.


You mean it hurts all of us men. 

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

DirtySteve said:


> You mean it hurts all of us men.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


No, it hurts us all when less qualified people are put into jobs they have no business in. In many cases, lives can be lost.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

SEMichiiganConservation said:


> No, it hurts us all when less qualified people are put into jobs they have no business in. In many cases, lives can be lost.


You could argue the opposite for decades. If more qualified women were overlooked lives could also be lost. 

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

DirtySteve said:


> You could argue the opposite for decades. If more qualified women were overlooked lives could also be lost.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I am arguing that promoting unqualified people is wrong. Lowering standards to put people into jobs, they otherwise could not qualify for, is wrong. It makes no difference who, or what, is being put into that position, if they are not qualified they have no business being there.


----------



## buckguts1970 (Dec 7, 2012)

We could argue that you guys just like to argue lol.


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

buckguts1970 said:


> We could argue that you guys just like to argue lol.


There is no argument to that


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

SEMichiiganConservation said:


> I am arguing that promoting unqualified people is wrong. Lowering standards to put people into jobs, they otherwise could not qualify for, is wrong. It makes no difference who, or what, is being put into that position, if they are not qualified they have no business being there.


Which is why there is a movement to put women in higher positions. They were overlooked for decades when many were likely qualified. How else do you fix that issue? Even out the talent pool is the solution. 

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

DirtySteve said:


> Which is why there is a movement to put women in higher positions. They were overlooked for decades when many were likely qualified. How else do you fix that issue? Even out the talent pool is the solution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I would solve it by ONLY hiring 100% qualified people. I would NEVER lower standards. The gender of who I would put into a position would not be an issue. It is impossible to "fix the past".


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> Which is why there is a movement to put women in higher positions. They were overlooked for decades when many were likely qualified. How else do you fix that issue? Even out the talent pool is the solution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Ridiculous...If the person isn't qualified they shouldn't get the job.

For some reason you are focusing on females...I saw both females & males get jobs they were unqualified for. Off the top of my head I can remember two instances where guys made horrible mistakes that came very close to having people seriously hurt or killed. Both were kept in the job (same job as mine, different region). They both have cocky know it all attitudes. Obviously, management should have done more about it, but didn't.


----------



## Jerry Lamb (Aug 3, 2015)

Who you know over what you know.
Always been this way, will always be this way.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Jerry Lamb said:


> Who you know over what you know.
> Always been this way, will always be this way.


Guess they should have a hired a woman from Cali with no experience


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

I can't speak for that job that she was hired for but I sure can't speak for a lot of other jobs that women have no business being in. That's a realistic statement


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Craves said:


> Ridiculous...If the person isn't qualified they shouldn't get the job.
> 
> For some reason you are focusing on females...I saw both females & males get jobs they were unqualified for. Off the top of my head I can remember two instances where guys made horrible mistakes that came very close to having people seriously hurt or killed. Both were kept in the job (same job as mine, different region). They both have cocky know it all attitudes. Obviously, management should have done more about it, but didn't.


Think about that for a minute. What you are saying we should do is impossible if we do not even the playing field at somepoint. 

If for decades you only focused on males and 90% of women are overlooked how many outstanding women were left out of the talent pool to select from? How is that better and hiring the best person? There are more women in this world than men. The only way to right the ship is to get the talent pool to an even level. That is why the movement exists. At some point you have to bite the bullet and even the playing field.....or you are never hiring the best person for the job. 

Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

No matter how hard you try, the "sins" of the past cannot be changed. Doing wrong, to fix wrong, is wrong. You also cannot level the playing field by lowering standards. Either the candidate is qualified, or they are not. IF they are not, no job.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Chessieman said:


> So LGB, the better person that has less seniority should be kept on the bottom?
> That is not how it works in the real world now days.
> Sure, there is still a lot of good old boy stuff in private companies but if you work for them, it is on you.


The "best person" is subjective at best. Seniority is the fairest system and it appsolutely exist in the "real world". When you leave promotions the purely subjective criteria you open the door for favoritism and worse.


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> Think about that for a minute. What you are saying we should do is impossible if we do not even the playing field at somepoint.
> 
> If for decades you only focused on males and 90% of women are overlooked how many outstanding women were left out of the talent pool to select from? How is that better and hiring the best person? There are more women in this world than men. The only way to right the ship is to get the talent pool to an even level. That is why the movement exists. At some point you have to bite the bullet and even the playing field.....or you are never hiring the best person for the job.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S901U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Your logic (or lack there of) is ridiculous. 

Let me be clear...I don't care who gets the job. The candidate(s) who are best qualified should get the job...period. 

Why you continue to focus on females is beyond me.

Think about that for more than a minute...


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

I haven't heard anyone with a specific reason why she is not qualified. Does the fact that she is female make her less qualified?


----------



## SEMichiiganConservation (7 mo ago)

No, and never forget that we have had a woman DNR director. For those who don't remember, or didn't know, many local sportsman's organization mounted a write in campaign to help her get that appointment.


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

plugger said:


> I haven't heard anyone with a specific reason why she is not qualified. Does the fact that she is female make her less qualified?


Not in my eyes...I hope she is successful. 

She has a lot on her plate. The majority of deer hunters want change...hopefully she will listen and work with the NRC to make something positive happen as well as the new consent decree and the huge effect it will have on fishing.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

Nostromo said:


> The "best person" is subjective at best. Seniority is the fairest system and it appsolutely exist in the "real world". When you leave promotions the purely subjective criteria you open the door for favoritism and worse.


So you are totally against this new director that rose thru the ranks on her own merit. 




plugger said:


> I haven't heard anyone with a specific reason why she is not qualified. Does the fact that she is female make her less qualified?


Nostro here thinks she should not be.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

Chessieman said:


> So you are totally against this new director that rose thru the ranks on her own merit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everybody has an opinion but at the same time everybody deserves a chance if they're qualified for the position.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

I am in favor of her as I stated in the other thread, I think she is what we need.


----------



## onebad800 (Apr 28, 2003)

Im sure she has the same agenda as Whitmer.....


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

jatc said:


> I’m happy to see someone from the Wildlife Division appointed as opposed to a paper pusher from a totally different governmental entity.


I agree but will hold my applause until later on. The proof is in the pudding, as the old saying goes.

No matter who is appointed DNR Director, or Chief of any division within the department for that matter, if they are not a kiss-up going in, they soon will be if they wish to retain their position for any length of time. I base that assumption only on what has happened in the past. Examples: I came back from deer camp only to find that a well-respected Division Chief, one who had a reputation for standing his ground when he knew he had the science behind him, had been pushed out. Nobody saw that coming, not even the DC himself because he too only found out about it when he received the news while at deer camp. Another Chief along with the Assistant Chief within that same division were also show the door but to add insult to injury were told they could reinterview for their jobs.



SEMichiiganConservation said:


> No matter how hard you try, the "sins" of the past cannot be changed. Doing wrong, to fix wrong, is wrong. You also cannot level the playing field by lowering standards. Either the candidate is qualified, or they are not. IF they are not, no job.


Serving on the first of several interview panels I learned the instructions were to list the top three candidates but all the rest as either "qualified" or "unqualified". When I asked why I was quickly and sternly informed that HR had the final say-so on who was hired. FM


----------



## Baybum (Jan 9, 2008)

plugger said:


> I haven't heard anyone with a specific reason why she is not qualified. Does the fact that she is female make her less qualified?


Ya I wonder if this thread goes past 15 posts if she is not female. Was there somebody more qualified that was passed up? She seems pretty qualified from what is in her LinkedIn at least.



https://www.linkedin.com/in/shannon-lott-0696aa10



Sent from my SM-A716U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

Since no reason was given for the change, I suspect it had domething yo do with the Consent Decree that was just put out after Eichinger was moved. He was always on the side of sport fishing before, so maybe that didn't align with the governor. We'll see what eventually leaks out.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

onebad800 said:


> Im sure she has the same agenda as Whitmer.....


Not real optimistic are you ? I understand that mostly but I try and give the benefit to a new director. Even the Lions made something happen this year. If that can happen, anything's possible.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Chessieman said:


> So you are totally against this new director that rose thru the ranks on her own merit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nostromo didn't say any such thing. I merely corrected your false statement and explained why you were wrong. Your welcome by the way.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

Your quote, of course you are never wrong in your mind, you are welcome.
PS what's this word mean mister perfect; appsolutely 

"The "best person" is subjective at best. Seniority is the fairest system and it appsolutely exist in the "real world". When you leave promotions the purely subjective criteria you open the door for favoritism and worse."


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

buckguts1970 said:


> We could argue that you guys just like to argue lol.


Wrong! I don’t like to argue at all. I would prefer that everyone just admits right to begin with that I’m right and they are wrong.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Chessieman said:


> Your quote, of course you are never wrong in your mind, you are welcome.
> PS what's this word mean mister perfect; appsolutely
> 
> "The "best person" is subjective at best. Seniority is the fairest system and it appsolutely exist in the "real world". When you leave promotions the purely subjective criteria you open the door for favoritism and worse."


You would have to consult with auto-correct.


----------



## fowl (Feb 15, 2003)

It doesn’t take long for these threads to derail. The first similar thread went straight to a deer discussion. This one went right to affirmative action. 

I can tell you that Shannon paid her dues in the field and is a qualified professional. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

fowl said:


> It doesn’t take long for these threads to derail. The first similar thread went straight to a deer discussion. This one went right to affirmative action.
> 
> I can tell you that Shannon paid her dues in the field and is a qualified professional.
> 
> ...


I ve heard the same thing from several LEO s that have had contact with her. I wish her luck and I hope she improves upon what is going on now.


----------



## JackAm (Aug 25, 2007)

I met with the new ACTING Director earlier this week. She didn't ask for this job and is not sure she wants it. She even made sure her new nameplate for her office says Acting Director.

I found her to be extremely intelligent. No nonsense. When presented with a communication problem she let it be known that she's already working on it and by the sound of her voice, I wouldn't want to be the hiccup that is messing things up.

I think she'll do a great job and it may even come to the point where the ride is smooth and she decides that she might like to be the Director. Just the fact that she was recently cutting off deer heads, taking care of elk kills, and meeting with the public speaks volumes. As Deputy or Assistant Director (whichever the title is,) it was her choice to do or not do any of that. She chose DO.

I wish her luck.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

JackAm said:


> I met with the new ACTING Director earlier this week. She didn't ask for this job and is not sure she wants it. She even made sure her new nameplate for her office says Acting Director.
> 
> I found her to be extremely intelligent. No nonsense. When presented with a communication problem she let it be known that she's already working on it and by the sound of her voice, I wouldn't want to be the hiccup that is messing things up.
> 
> ...


I hope you are right. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for a short while. There are a lot of changes and recommendations for change she can make very quickly that would have a positive impact on hunter/fisherman numbers and the resources they are charged with managing. The Consent Decree coming out just after she took office was not a good start, but we'll see how that all shakes out. I'll give her through winter and possibly spring, which is when hunting and fishing regulation issues usually get addressed. After that I'll make my decision as it will be clear if she is for us and the resources or against us.


----------



## LGB (9 mo ago)

The bad part about others and myself hoping she takes the right path for wildlife management is, we all have different views of what that is and what we individually want to see her do. Not everyone will be happy with her work. Then there's always a higher power that has a different agenda. All these things come into play and she's pretty much set up to fail based on just those two things let alone if her plan isn't perfect for what most feel defines "Perfect".


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Attempting to stay on topic here. 

This was actually more about Eichinger. He sold us out for political favors and this was his reward. Every every decision made in the last 2 years have went against sportsman in-favor of the more passive outdoor activities. Don’t get me started on the consent decree.

As for the appointment of Lott. I think it’s a good move overall for sportsman. I’m honestly surprised it wasn’t another political favor appointment. It could be much much worse. She is going to basically ignore hunting, and fishing. She could have appointed a full blown anti hunter like Dana Nessel. 

We really need to push for a game and fish division. It’s the only real hope as our DNR has become a political football.


----------



## JackAm (Aug 25, 2007)

Night Moves - 
what changes do you want her to make (and is Spring far enough out to set as a deadline?)

Another thing that impressed me was that I identified a roadblock to information between license holders and the DNR. You've seen it on this forum a million times - someone posts something like "Can I hunt with a bow and a gun during the late doe season" or something similar. That person will get nine answers and one may be right, but he has no idea which to take to the bank and which answers are from keyboard commandos. I suggested a way to communicate with the DNR when you have a question about legalities of xxxxxx. She stared at me for a moment and then started writing. She then expounded on it and spent more time mulling it over. Now, maybe it will never happen, but she was not paying lip service. She was seriously considering how to do it, so it seems that she is open to the needs of license holders.

The DNR has 111 vacant wildlife positions and she has her hands full filling them. Fisheries isn't quite so bad.
Michigan has 12 new C.O.s now. I don't know it that knocks it down t o less than 100 or not, but that's still a lot of jobs to fill.

So we'll see. Fingers crossed!!!!


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

JackAm said:


> Night Moves -
> what changes do you want her to make (and is Spring far enough out to set as a deadline?)
> 
> Another thing that impressed me was that I identified a roadblock to information between license holders and the DNR. You've seen it on this forum a million times - someone posts something like "Can I hunt with a bow and a gun during the late doe season" or something similar. That person will get nine answers and one may be right, but he has no idea which to take to the bank and which answers are from keyboard commandos. I suggested a way to communicate with the DNR when you have a question about legalities of xxxxxx. She stared at me for a moment and then started writing. She then expounded on it and spent more time mulling it over. Now, maybe it will never happen, but she was not paying lip service. She was seriously considering how to do it, so it seems that she is open to the needs of license holders.
> ...


I don't want to derail this thread with all the changes she should be making, but she should be making changes to increase hunter and fisherman numbers as a top priority.

If you have a question about regulations you can email or call the DNR for an answer. Nothing new is required there.


----------



## JackAm (Aug 25, 2007)

Nine times out of ten they don't answer their phones or return the call. Although she is going to change that, there should be better ways. Talk with Adam Bump lately? No, me neither.

Okay, like I said - fingers crossed. I hope she does well.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

Thread reminds me of something I read yesterday about the University of Colorado. Looks like Lott is a much better hire than this was.

_ 
They named Todd Saliman as the interim president in July of 2021 while they did a search for a permanent president. Saliman is a nobody – an administrative lifer whose highest degree is a BA in political science from CU. He was the chief financial officer at CU-Boulder for several years, although what his qualifications were for that job remains obscure. 

Anyway the regents really liked him because he’s a “nice guy,” and Kennedy was apparently a sociopathic robot, so the contrast was striking. 

Long story short, there were ten semi-finalists for the permanent job, and they picked him over all nine others, including eight POC and/or women, despite his complete lack of any traditional qualifications for the job. 

Well it turns out a big factor in how he got that job is that, in December of last year, when he was a candidate for the permanent position, he announced that CU was going to spend $265 million in a once in a lifetime splurge out of the endowments, because of a $436 million investment gain between FY2020 and FY2021. This kind of looks like a quasi-bribe to buy off any opposition to his candidacy but that is such an ugly word . . . 
Moving right along, it turns out he ****ed this whole thing up by not actually removing a lot of the $265 million out of the markets, so when things went south this year $120 million of that $265 was no longer available, since it had gone to money heaven. All of that $120 million had already been earmarked for various projects over this fiscal year and the next, which means the whole system is now in a financial crisis. 

All this is now being blamed on CU”s former treasurer, who “resigned” last week, and who pretty clearly is being used as a fall guy for Saliman’s face plant. 

The funny thing here is that Saliman’s sole putative qualification for getting the job – a job that went to a totally unqualified white guy over a bunch of vastly more qualified women/POC – is that he was supposedly so good with money. 

Except now the money’s gone. 

And oh yeah, in the middle of all this, when it was still unknown to the faculty, these same administrators dropped $30 million we don't have on hiring a new football coach._


----------

