Dr. Jonathan Gassett Named Interim Comm.

[HOG]

Kentucky Commerce Cabinet News Release

Dr. Jonathan Gassett Named

KDFWR Interim Commissioner

April 7, 2005
Contact: Mark Marraccini

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(800) 852-0942.310

Frankfort, KY - Dr. Jonathan W. Gassett was named Interim Commissioner of
the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Wednesday by the
Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission in a special called meeting.

Gassett, Director of the Division of Wildlife and a six-year veteran of the
Department, accepted the appointment after the special meeting. He is 37.

Gassett replaces outgoing Commissioner Tom Bennett, who announced his
intention to retire at the Commission's regular quarterly meeting March 3.

"We are confident Jon Gassett will continue to move the department forward
in the same fashion of the great commissioners the agency has had over the
years," said Commission Chairman Doug Hensley in announcing the appointment.

"I appreciate the support and confidence of the Commission in this
decision," said Gassett. "I will do the best job possible.

"I've worked for Tom Bennett for six years now. He definitely knows how to
use his people and his resources," said Gassett. "We have the best agency
staff in the country, and I will be looking to them to help me move the
agency forward."

Gassett is a Certified Wildlife Biologist. He is a 1993 graduate of Kennesaw
State University with a B.S. Degree in biology. He earned a Masters Degree
in 1995 from the University of Georgia in Forest Resources. He received his
Doctorate in Forest Resources, "White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management"
from the University of Georgia in 1999.

He is a member of The Wildlife Society, The Wildlife Disease Association,
the American Society of Mammalogists, Gamma Sigma Delta Honor Society of
Agriculture, Xi Sigma Pi Honor Society of Forestry, Quality Deer Management
Association, Boone & Crockett Association Official Measurer, Rocky Mountain
Elk Foundation, Certified Advanced SCUBA Diver, and a licensed private
pilot.

He has authored or co-authored more than 20 peer-reviewed scientific papers
in the field of wildlife management, including articles on Kentucky's deer
restoration, elk restoration, quality deer management, monitoring of
wildlife movement and behavior, responses of wildlife to habitat management
practices, and food habits of wildlife.

"We are about to enter one of the busiest seasons of the year," said
Gassett. "In less than two weeks, 80,000 turkey hunters will be taking to
the woods. Anglers are heading to the streams and lakes, and the summer
boating season will be upon us. Hunting, fishing and boating are a
tremendous part of Kentucky's economy. What a great time to be in Kentucky."

"We are going to look nationwide for the best commissioner that we can
possibly find," said Commission Chairman Doug Hensley. "We've already
received several resumes. We'll go through all of them, and we'll make a
diligent decision. It will be a total commission decision and we will make
the right decision."

[Bowcrazy]

And the people said.............

[MD501]

wonder if it mattered what the people said

[Multidigits]

I don't get it. Have you ever seen a BOD of a major company ask the people what they think about a CEO selection. The decision to name a temp hire was the Commissions and they did it. End of story. Besides, Jon Gassett is a fine choice and should actually make a fine Commissioner if he gets the position full time. He's got my support.

[grouseguy]

Personally, I can't support Jon Gassett for Commissioner, but its not because I have any negative opinions of Dr. Gassett at all. On the contrary, I prefer to keep Dr. Gassett as WD, because of the good job he's doing in that position. Just how would promoting Dr. Gassett to Commissioner be a positive for the KDFWR? In 20+ years of business experiences, I have found that it is best to play to an individual employees strengths...and Dr. Gassett's major strength is as a biologist. Keep in mind that we've already lost our commissioner and deer program biologist, if Dr. Gassett were promoted to Commissioner, in effect, we would have 3 people in NEW positions that are arguably the 3 most high profile positions in the KDFWR. Therefore, I'm in favor or retaining Dr. Gassett's talents as WD for stability, and because he is doing the job well.

Let's focus on hiring an experienced administrator...the Commissioners position is largely PR, personnel, and budgetary, and I don't see a PhD in Wildlife Biology being much benefit in those tasks. Keep in mind we're dealing with an Agency with 400+ employees and a $35MM annual budget. IMHO, the successful candidate should have administrative experience in dealing in a large corporate or governmental environment, with a strong emphasis on PR, HR and budgeting, a wildlife/outdoor background (preferably with knowledge of KY issues) and an impeccable reputation for integrity.

IMHO, the next Commissioner's first order of business will be to reestablish the credibility of the KDFWR with the sportsmen, and I feel that someone from outside of the KDFWR would have a better chance to connect with the sportsmen, while being able to distance themselves from the previous administration.

Again, this should in no way be viewed as negative towards Dr. Gassett, but as a positive for the job he's doing as WD, along with an objective assessment of the qualities necessary to succeed as Commissioner.

[Multidigits]

Well, I disagree. the fact that Gassett moved up since his hire 6 years ago and has excelled in ever position shows that he is in fact qualified, and that he free from the politics that aren't supposed to be in the KYDFWR anyway. I'll take wildlife experience over a lack of it and let the subordinates do the admin part. We need a strong CEO and Gassett fits the bill. We could do a lot worse by getting a outsider. Gassett's been here long enough to be considered a home boy by now. Beside that, he's a pretty sharp cookie and I think he'll do an excellent job if given the chance. I hope he gets it over some turkey we've never heard of before.

[grouseguy]

That's why they make chocolate and vanilla for differing opinions and tastes.

Good arguments can be made on both sides of this issue, and I'm just offering my perspective based on my own personal experiences. I just prefer keeping Dr. Gassett as Wildlife Director, which is sure not something I would have advocated for the prior WD.:rolleyes:

[Multidigits]

10-4....i'm a straight vanilla man myself.

[Xtreme]

I don't get it. Have you ever seen a BOD of a major company ask the people what they think about a CEO selection. The decision to name a temp hire was the Commissions and they did it. End of story. Besides, Jon Gassett is a fine choice and should actually make a fine Commissioner if he gets the position full time. He's got my support.

In the case of a BOD hiring a CEO the company is a "for profit" company answering to both consumers as well as stock holders.

The case of commissioner is he or she will work for those who pay his or hers salary i.e the user groups.....hence THEY are the consumers and stockholders.

To exclude the will of the "stockholders" would be the same as inserting a "dictator".

Nuff said;)

[GSP]

I would tend to agree with Grouseguy on this one.

I could and would support Jon 110% if he were to get the job and that is to assume he would want it. But I really would love to see him be able to showcase his knowledge in the Wildlife portion though. Jon is a straight shooting person that knows his stuff. What he does best is listening to others. He considers everyones opinions and ideas; if he disagrees, you know it on the spot. I like dealing with someone like that. Also if Jon is unable to give you an answer, he finds it and reports back. There is no BS with him and that is a rarity.

[gwhilikerz]

I think Gassett would work out very well indeed.

[Multidigits]

Well, there's no doubt it would be easier to showcase his talents by working from the top down instead at some politican dream that has no inkling of what agrouse needs or what a turkey or deer eats. We've had enough mis-management, it's time to start a new chapter. Looks like I'm in the minority again. Man, that's a shock! Anyway, we have several choices for you to choose from, and some are deeply entrenched politicians. You guys might just well get your wish?

[turk2di]

Wouldn't be fair to deny him a new position simply because he done too good a job in another field! Sounds like a good guy to me! Is it public knowledge to know who has put in so far, or a secret?

[grouseguy]

Well, there's no doubt it would be easier to showcase his talents by working from the top down instead at some politican dream that has no inkling of what agrouse needs or what a turkey or deer eats. We've had enough mis-management, it's time to start a new chapter. Looks like I'm in the minority again. Man, that's a shock! Anyway, we have several choices for you to choose from, and some are deeply entrenched politicians. You guys might just well get your wish?

Tom,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your logic at all. Let's use myself as an example...I'm a trained commercial lender with 20+ years experience. Last year I accepted an executive administrative position overseeing the entire lending department for a community bank. My days now involve very little customer contact or actual lending, but are occupied with personnel and administrative duties, and my position involves just a fraction of the number of employees and/or issues that the KDFWR Commissioner will face daily. What that means is that if Jon was to get the position, he would have VERY LITTLE time for biological input, but would be spending his time managing the entire department, not just the wildlife division.

Rick Allen (GSP) outlined my thoughts on the matter very well in his previous post.

I'm not looking for a politician either...IMHO that term has evolved into a insult for incompetence...but I do see benefits in targeting an individual with administrative experience, including a wildlife background, to oversee the huge mechanism of the KDFWR.

There is no need to keep "drawing lines in the sand" and taking sides of for'em or against'em, and intelligent informed people can have opposite but valid opinions based on their own experiences. There is NO one size fits all, and there is no need for you to continue attempting to alienate everyone you come in contact with that even SLIGHTLY disagrees with you on any issue. If you have nothing to offer other than to settle preexisting grudges (and IMHO that's what you're doing here), do that personally on your own time and don't involve ALL the sportsmen in KY in your petty differences. It really isn't necessary for you to take an adversarial position on every issue that is brought to the table.

[schuyler olt]

As many of you know, I have submitted my qualifications to the Commission. Fortunately, Jon and I had the opportunity to talk at George's memorial service. Jon and I have known each other for several years and have worked together on many issues. I consider him a friend, and I think that is mutual.

This is a professional competition. I am competing solely on the basis of my resume and qualifications. I am certain Jon is doing likewise. I am absolutely confident that both during this competition and after it, both of us will stand committed to support the other, or whomever gets the job. After all, the resource and those little ones who will one day assume our stewardship are the ones of paramount importance.

My dad told me over forty years ago that the most important thing about squirrel hunting is to keep your eye on the squirrel. We need to focus on our short and long term hopes, goals, needs, opportunities and objectives and realize that this competition could have the result of creating an enormously talented team from among the competitors.

I've seen more political mudslinging that I can stomach. It may happen here, but it isn't going to come from me. First, I don't have mud to sling. Second, even if I had it I wouldn't use it. Simply put, if my qualifications are not considered up to the job, then I don't deserve the job.

[gwhilikerz]

Tom,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your logic at all. Let's use myself as an example...I'm a trained commercial lender with 20+ years experience. Last year I accepted an executive administrative position overseeing the entire lending department for a community bank. My days now involve very little customer contact or actual lending, but are occupied with personnel and administrative duties, and my position involves just a fraction of the number of employees and/or issues that the KDFWR Commissioner will face daily. What that means is that if Jon was to get the position, he would have VERY LITTLE time for biological input, but would be spending his time managing the entire department, not just the wildlife division.

Rick Allen (GSP) outlined my thoughts on the matter very well in his previous post.

I'm not looking for a politician either...IMHO that term has evolved into a insult for incompetence...but I do see benefits in targeting an individual with administrative experience, including a wildlife background, to oversee the huge mechanism of the KDFWR.

There is no need to keep "drawing lines in the sand" and taking sides of for'em or against'em, and intelligent informed people can have opposite but valid opinions based on their own experiences. There is NO one size fits all, and there is no need for you to continue attempting to alienate everyone you come in contact with that even SLIGHTLY disagrees with you on any issue. If you have nothing to offer other than to settle preexisting grudges (and IMHO that's what you're doing here), do that personally on your own time and don't involve ALL the sportsmen in KY in your petty differences. It really isn't necessary for you to take an adversarial position on every issue that is brought to the table.
Does your example mean that you aren't/can't do your new job as well as someone else could? Or that the new person on your old job isn't doing it well? I see you took the promotion. More money?

[Multidigits]

Tom,

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your logic at all. Let's use myself as an example...I'm a trained commercial lender with 20+ years experience. Last year I accepted an executive administrative position overseeing the entire lending department for a community bank. My days now involve very little customer contact or actual lending, but are occupied with personnel and administrative duties, and my position involves just a fraction of the number of employees and/or issues that the KDFWR Commissioner will face daily. What that means is that if Jon was to get the position, he would have VERY LITTLE time for biological input, but would be spending his time managing the entire department, not just the wildlife division.

Rick Allen (GSP) outlined my thoughts on the matter very well in his previous post.

I'm not looking for a politician either...IMHO that term has evolved into a insult for incompetence...but I do see benefits in targeting an individual with administrative experience, including a wildlife background, to oversee the huge mechanism of the KDFWR.

There is no need to keep "drawing lines in the sand" and taking sides of for'em or against'em, and intelligent informed people can have opposite but valid opinions based on their own experiences. There is NO one size fits all, and there is no need for you to continue attempting to alienate everyone you come in contact with that even SLIGHTLY disagrees with you on any issue. If you have nothing to offer other than to settle preexisting grudges (and IMHO that's what you're doing here), do that personally on your own time and don't involve ALL the sportsmen in KY in your petty differences. It really isn't necessary for you to take an adversarial position on every issue that is brought to the table.

Again, we disagree. You know the story of what politics can do to the job. We've been there together and heard the spill. We've seen everything from comorants to grouse habitat issues to Johnson Co. boat ramps "politic'd away" so to speak. Why anyone would rather have a seasoned politiciam such as Robin Webb over someone qualified to hold the position, plus knows the scope of the job is beyond me. With Gassett, you get the best of both worlds, a person with admin experience(WD) and a very good biology background. Hard to loose with all that going for you.

No comment on your rebuke of my opinions other than to say your a fine one to talk. Think what you want, support who you want how you want. I'll do the same.

[grouseguy]

Does your example mean that you aren't/can't do your new job as well as someone else could? Or that the new person on your old job isn't doing it well? I see you took the promotion. More money?

You've slightly missed the point...I don't oppose Jon Gassett for the position. If he were hired, I think he would do a good job, but I'm concerned that we won't be as well pleased with a new WD, just as I am having a problem finding a good commercial lender. I was not the bank's first choice, they were looking for an experienced Chief Lending Officer...their preference was to have an experienced commercial lender AND an experienced Chief Lending Officer, but they had to work with what was available. Fortunately, the KDFWR has better options than the bank did.

Our deer biologist is leaving, which would be the logical choice to fill the WD position...if memory serves, that's where JG was when he took the WD position...plus we would be looking for a new WD also. I want the KDFWR to "be all it can be", which IMHO would be Schuyler Olt as Commissioner working together with Jon Gassett as WD to fill the vacant deer biologist position, and lead the KDFWR into the future.

[Multidigits]

There's more than 3 candidates, from what I'm told. I can't verify any of them other than Sky or Jon. I know both are in and both are qualified for the job.

The others I've heard that are in, are qualified as well based on your parameters. Hard to say that people that have successfully held admin positions can't do the same again.

But the truth is that so far, the only one that can do the job and has a strong wildlife background is Gassett. Not to say that Sky couldn't do a wonderful job as Commissioner. I just believe the best choice at this time is the interim Commissioner.

As for practical experience, I've seen many different managers in the 27 years of working for a huge chemical company. Since my hire in date, there must have been well over 100 area manger changes and at least 10 CEO changes. The best and the most successful are always the ones that started out and worked their way up the ladder. On the job experience is worth more than book sense any day.

[gwhilikerz]

I suppose I look at things from a slightly different level. I don't buy into the "he shouldn't get the job because we need him where he is" theory. The way I see it is if Gassett were promoted then he doesn't suddenly lose everything he knows about wildlife biology. In fact that background will be a big help when he must evaluate what the "new" biologists and those already working within the dept. have to say about a subject. He can understand what they are telling him better than someone who maybe doesn't know a grouse from the majestic elk.
I'm sure OLT is also qualified for the position. But I feel Gassett is the better choice. Either one would be much better than someone who knows little about KY, and less about game management. My opinion.

[grouseguy]

I suppose I look at things from a slightly different level. I don't buy into the "he shouldn't get the job because we need him where he is" theory. The way I see it is if Gassett were promoted then he doesn't suddenly lose everything he knows about wildlife biology. In fact that background will be a big help when he must evaluate what the "new" biologists and those already working within the dept. have to say about a subject. He can understand what they are telling him better than someone who maybe doesn't know a grouse from the majestic elk.
I'm sure OLT is also qualified for the position. But I feel Gassett is the better choice. Either one would be much better than someone who knows little about KY, and less about game management. My opinion.

gwhilikerz,

I think we are basically on the same page and can reduce our differences to nothing more than "an honest difference of opinion" about which would be the best between two qualified candidates. Let's hope the final decision comes down to between these two...if that's the case...we as sportsmen are in a win/win position.

[Multidigits]

gwhilikerz,

I think we are basically on the same page and can reduce our differences to nothing more than "an honest difference of opinion" about which would be the best between two qualified candidates. Let's hope the final decision comes down to between these two...if that's the case...we as sportsmen are in a win/win position.


Interesting....the same exact thing that I just posted except I get the third degree and a rebuke of my past life for posting my opinion. Very interesting. :confused:

[grouseguy]

Tom,

If I'm wrong then I'm sorry, but I felt you had a ulterior motive in switching your support to JG. You originally supported Sky, but then when Sky came out opposing the manner in which the vote occurred, you flip-flopped to JG. I know how personal you have taken this crossbow issue, and I interpreted your change of support as an attempt to get back at Schuyler for opposing your view.

[Multidigits]

Tom,

If I'm wrong then I'm sorry, but I felt you had a ulterior motive in switching your support to JG. You originally supported Sky, but then when Sky came out opposing the manner in which the vote occurred, you flip-flopped to JG. I know how personal you have taken this crossbow issue, and I interpreted your change of support as an attempt to get back at Schuyler for opposing your view.

As I explained to Sky, your wrong. This is about who I feel will be the best man for the job. Period.

In my opinion, it'll be such a relief to get a wildlife man in the position that actually listens to his constituients when they have a problem. I've talked with Gassett for hours before and he'w always got the answers. Not all of them are what I want to hear at times, but he'll listen to what you have to say. And that folks, is what we've been asking for since day one when I got roped in to trying to make things better for the hunters of the state.

[daking]

It would seem to me that the mission of the commissioner of fish and wildlife would be to use the scarece resources available to the department to create as many outdoor recreation opportunities as possible. If I were on the fish and wildlife commission (a thought which I'm sure terrorizes many of you), I would be seeking a candidate with a recreation administration background. We've hired the best and brightest biologists we could find. David Casey and his LE contingent are as good as it gets. These folks are absolute professionals. Whether or not their professional skills translate into the ability to "conduct the orchestra" is something the commission must decide.

As for the general disdain for politics exhibited here, I believe it to be hypocritical. Everything is politics. Don't believe it? Let's look at the crossbow issue. There are those among us who believe that all archery tackle innovation ended with the invention of the longbow. This group will use what it perceives to be its influence, applied to the people most succeptable to the influence wielded, so as to get the rules they like. Thpse of us who are crossbow guys will do exactly the same. Both sides might hide behind some self-righteous platitudes that give their position a thin veneer of virture, but basically, they're doing what politicians do...exerting their influence in the hopes that they can achieve the outcome they want. The allocation of scarce resources across a state with many interests is subject to all sorts of personal political manuvering. The guys in Eastern Kentucky who are interested in small game habitat are competing with the guys in Western Kentucky who might be interested in fisheries improvements on the big lakes. Guys, it's all politics, so whoever is responsible for running this department had better be a pretty adroit politician, because he or she will be trying to make relatively small, underfunded department work while keeping sportsmen and women with vastly divergent interests and opinions about how things should be done happy. That person will also have to keep the his bosses on the commission happy, make sure the legislature is not unhappy, the governor and the executive branch are placated and the department's employees are happy and productive. I'd say they best look for a damn good politician for this job.

While we're on the subject, I've been accused of being a bit of a toady for Tom Bennett. Well, folks, I appreciate what he's done as commissioner. Everyone has a special issue that's dear to them. They are angry when it isn't handled the exact way they want it done. We have a hell of a lot more hunting and fishing opportunities than we had before Bennett. We also have more public hunting and fishing sites than we had before. Maybe, just maybe, some of us have been selfish and small minded in putting our interests ahead of what's the best for everybody. Personally, after seeing the slings and arrows, accusations and outright ad hominem attacks that have been leveled at the present commissioner, his staff, the department and the entire system in general, I think it would be foolish to aspire to such a miserable job.

That's my opinion. Yours may differ. I'm sure I'll get my share of hate mail, but while you're pissing and moaning, remember you're doing so in a state that produces more boone and crockett bucks than all but one other, has a turkey flock that is second to none, is the crappie and smallmouth capital of the south, has game that was almost non-existent a few short years ago and has the premiere trout fishery in the south. Maybe people should take a break from the complaining and count your blessings.

Terry Sullivan

[Highbow]

Be away too long, Sky I still think you are the best person for the Commissioner position, Jon Gassett is in the position we need him in , as others have stated. I can't even stand the thought of Robin Webb as our Commissioner and feel just as GG if she were selected.

[MD501]

if you think david casey and the frankfort l.e command staff is as good as it gets you are mistaken between the three of them they dont have as much field experience as one good officer. and their management skills are lacking, if they were so good you wouldnt see the low moral of the officers in the field. they lack the respect of the officer in the field who actually gets the job done. they have no desire to fight for the officer in the field because they value their postion in frankfort to much. they need to step back into the field to evaluate the real world. if they went to work in 20 year old boats like some they would get it in gear i could go on but i think you get what i'm saying

[Xtreme]

I've said for years we need some one at the helm that hunts and fishes first and worries about politics second. Some times biologists are a bit hard to talk to due to their educations overiding their hands on and common sense.

I know, wish in one hand and s!@# in the other:D

[turk2di]

As I explained to Sky, your wrong. This is about who I feel will be the best man for the job. Period.

In my opinion, it'll be such a relief to get a wildlife man in the position that actually listens to his constituients when they have a problem. I've talked with Gassett for hours before and he'w always got the answers. Not all of them are what I want to hear at times, but he'll listen to what you have to say. And that folks, is what we've been asking for since day one when I got roped in to trying to make things better for the hunters of the state.
Don't mean to turn this into a "who you for" thread, but im hopin for Sky simply because i know of him thru huntin sites like this one, respect his reasoning and he's not above answerin your e-mail or PM. Simply don't know Mr. Gasset. Whoever get's the job i hope he lives up to the accolades you guy's have expressed about them. Im gonna keep these accolades for future reference and see what's heaped on them two or three years from now;)

[Multidigits]

From my experience, it's a wash on both candidates. As you say, Sky is on here a bunch and normally attends most LKS meetings and KYDFWR Commission meetings. Gassett is accessable as well. He runs a busy schedule but will return your calls when he gets them. i've never had a problem bending his ear with any issue.

[buckfever]

My question is: Is it equally important for the new KDFWR commissioner to be as well versed in administrative/political/social issues as he/she is on natural resource issues?

My own personal view is that the two are equally important. I think that having a fundamental understanding of nature is obviously critical to the job. I think that having a commissioner that relates to sportsmen (hunters/fishermen/birdwatchers/hikers etc.) is also critical. However, I also believe that it is absolutely necessary that our new commissioner possess excellent administrative, social and political skills. The position is just as much about managing people and understanding social issues as it is about managing resources. The Dept hires biologists to issue opinions on how to manage specific resources. The Commissioner must determine how to manage those resources within the context of society.

I don't know Jon Gassett, but from all reports, he's a top notch biologist with a nose for his current position. Obviously, that's a huge plus for any putative KDFWR Comm'r. From what I've read on here, the only uncertainty regarding him is that people question whether he has the demonstrated skills and background to handle himself in the political and administrative arenas (although he has been with the Dept for some time and certainly has been exposed to these aspects of the job). I'm sure that the Commissioners know him well and will be able to make an adequate judgment on this point. Conversely, I know that Sky is very well versed in politics and administration and has an impressive wildlife resume as well.

Although Mr. Gassett may possess all of the skills necessary to be Commissioner, his background appears to focus on the natural resources, not people, and this is something that might cut against his chances. However, I think it's definitely to his benefit that the decision-makers are fully cognizant of his abilities through his work at the KDFWR.