Wacenturion wrote:
It was tried and failed to pass during the late 80's/early 90's (don't remember the exact year). It was titled Initiative 90, which would have done essentially the same thing as the Missouri bill did. Unfortunately it didn't get enough support.
Well, I can tell you pretty much why.
When a bunch from the old Game Department came to visit with us at Fishing & Hunting News to extol the virtues of this measure, they sat in the publisher's office and declared that the money would be used to enhance songbird habitat and provide opportunities to do a bunch of non-game stuff, create "watchable wildlife" opportunities, ad infinitum. All of the benefits of this program seemed to emphasize what would be done for the "dickie birds" and "dickie bird lovers" as one of our guys put it.
Pretty much an emphasis on non-consumptive use
There was nothing I can recall that alluded to:
putting 10,000 more elk out there and expanding the hunting opportunities
increasing the deer herds by 40,000 to 50,000 and expanding the hunting opportunities
Boosting hatchery production on steelhead and resident trout
boosting the pheasant, chukar and quail populations in Eastern Washington
introducing wild turkeys (seems to me that had to be done through very creative and clever management swaps and other smart thinking
)
enhancing waterfowl habitat and populations
ad infinitum.
Only when we started asking them about "What about boosting the elk and deer populations, increasing pheasant releases" and such that we got a rather tepid "Oh, well, sure, we'll be working on that, too" kind of reaction. It was almost as an afterthought that needed some prodding.
After they left, we sat around staring at one another and sort of asking "What the hell was THAT??!!!"
and it ultimately drifted to "Those guys are NUTS!" with a few expletives tossed in here and there
It was, I gotta tell you, one of the damnedest conversations I ever sat through.
I'm not saying this would not have been a good idea. It may have been a grand idea. But it was sold poorly to the user group that really should have embraced the plan. Instead we were given a presentation about how all that money would allow the department to essentially crap all over consumptive users and provide spending opportunities to a bunch of fur huggers.
Well, I think there is some feeling out in the hinterlands that happened anyway
