Hunting Archery Duck Deer

DGIF overhaul has yet to reach its conclusionMay 24 was a dark day for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries.

At a special meeting of the department’s board of directors in Richmond, with TV cameras rolling, camera shutters clicking and a half-dozen reporters writing feverishly in notebooks, a state auditor released the findings of his investigation into the agency.

The 52-page report detailed numerous instances of improper purchases, cronyism and conflicts of interest. Investigator Merritt Cogswell also noted cases of intimidation and threatened retaliation against department employees thought to be behind the fraud hotline tips that prompted the investigation, or who were thought to be overly cooperative with the investigation.

The investigation forced the board to seek the resignation of agency director Bill Woodfin, who actually submitted his resignation before the official request was made.

The next may all of the state’s major dailies carried detailed accounts of the investigation’s results.

The following day brought the expected flurry of editorials, which generally praised the whistleblowers and said the removal of Woodfin was a good start toward getting the department back in the right direction.

One space that has been devoid of opinion on the situation is this one. Since the investigation got under way I have used this column to report developments but have avoided proffering my position.

Believe me, I have opinions and thoughts about what’s going on.

I’m a sportsman who carries $100 worth of hunting and fishing licenses, as well as a boat registration. I know and have worked with many of the department officials and employees on both sides of the investigation. I’ve seen much of the information and data Cogswell relied on during his investigation.

I care about the department, its past and its future.

But I’ve kept my opinion out of this column because of the ongoing need to cover news developments.

Admittedly, this is an unusual approach for me, or for newspaper outdoors columnists in general.

Often we take a kind of a two-pronged approach, mixing information and opinion.

My handling of the department’s proposal to ease crossbow-hunting regulations is a good example.

My primary focus has been to follow the proposal’s progress from suggested legislation to its current status, needing just the board’s vote of approval to become official. Yet early on I wrote that, even though I’m a bowhunter and have no plans to change that, I don’t oppose crossbows, even during special archery seasons.

The idea is to not only get the information out, but to offer insight and, in many cases, prompt debate and discussion among sportsmen.

The investigation into the game department requires a different approach.

It’s an important story, certainly the most important department-related story I’ve been involved with.

Publishing an opinion piece would instantly compromise my future news coverage of the story.

In a situation with such strongly divided sides, someone would get mad. That almost certainly would impact the willingness of sources on one side to cooperate with me for future news reports.

Most importantly, readers would have reason to question the objectivity of future reporting.

That approach can’t change quite yet. While the story is winding down, it’s not over.

The report recommends the director, in this case interim director Gerald Massengill, take appropriate personnel action regarding some of the findings.

What will that action be?

The report also found fault with the governor-appointed board of directors.

What action, if any, will Mark Warner take on that front?

I expect the next few weeks will produce a flurry of action in Richmond. I and other reporters following the story will get the news out, fairly.

We must leave the commentary to our papers’ editorial boards.

At least for now.
By Mark Taylor
981-3395
The Roanoke Times