Game Management Advisory Council opportunity

[loper]

FYI: 

WDFW seeks applicants for positions on game management advisory council

OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking nominations for its Game Management Advisory Council, which advises the department on issues including hunter-access opportunities, resource allocation, funding options and research projects.

WDFW Director Phil Anderson will appoint eight new members to the 26-member council that also makes recommendations regarding implementation of the department’s Game Management Plan (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/).

Nominees do not have to be affiliated with an organized group. Nominations must be submitted in writing with the following information:

    Nominee’s name, address, telephone number and email address.
    Relevant experience and reasons for wanting to serve as a member of the advisory group.
    Nominee’s effectiveness in communication.
    Name and contact information for any individual or organization submitting a nomination.

Nominations must be received by 5 p.m., Aug. 31. Nominations must be submitted to Dave Ware, Game Division Manager by mail: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091; or email at David.Ware@dfw.wa.gov. For more information, contact Dave Ware at (360) 902-2509.

New advisory council members will serve through June 2013. The council holds at least three one-day meetings each year. Special meetings may be called when special issues/topics arise. Council members are eligible to be reimbursed by WDFW for travel expenses to attend meetings.

[fair-chase]

Just how much influence does this advisory council have? If it's worth the effort, it would be nice to pool some volunteers from this site and then flood them with the nominations for our candidates.

[sebek556]

dave workman 

[Special T]

This is very important! I have talked to someone on the waterfowl advisory council and had an interesting conversation... I think this person will be shedding some light on these issues on this forum.  Many of these meetings are closed to the public, and i KNOW it is going to be important to bring some of the BS that has been going on into Plain View... If nothing else Someone who can share what the WDFW is thinking and doing would be important. I Do not think that it is very hard to get appointed BUT it is very important to start seizing the opportunities to take our sport back!

[bearpaw]

important, yes, from what I understand the the WDFW uses this group to advise on issues

[bearpaw]

Just how much influence does this advisory council have? If it's worth the effort, it would be nice to pool some volunteers from this site and then flood them with the nominations for our candidates.

good thought

[Special T]

I am told that they do not listen very well, but i think that is because the topics discussed at the meetings are not spread in public circles. IF we had someone that would ask the right questions and report back to the public what the answers were i think we would get some place. The Min are available to the public BUT they are very sparse and do not say what actually goes on. 

[Special T]

Sprig 58 will be posting up the WAG min here soon. Had another short chat with him about the WAG. In short he said that it is hard to hold people in the WDFW Even if called out. I think airing out some of the deficiencies is the only way we are going make headway so a GMAC member that reports to the public would be VERY valuable. 

[winshooter88]

Becoming a member of the GMAC is not that hard, trying to make any difference through the GMAC is very, very hard. Most of the time the department brings in their ideas and GMAC suggests changes, then the department does what it wanted to do in the first place. It can be very frustrating at times. It is kind of like the biologists sending in seasonal recommendations on harvest quotas, by the time their suggestions get acted upon they have been commented on by several levels of managers in the regions and in Olympia and rarely look any thing like what the biologists send in.



Edited for spelling

[Special T]

I think the insight by a GMAC member can be VERY insightful. They get a peek at how the WDFW thinks. Win88 I think your right that it is VERY hard for them(GMAC members) to make change. HOWEVER when the WDFW claims that hunters have had "Input" and there were no issues, if we had some forewarning we could provide more document-able suggestions/Input Via Letters WFW and otherwise. 

[Wacenturion]

Becoming a member of the GMAC is not that hard, trying to make any difference through the GMAC is very, very hard. Most of the time the department brings in their ideas and GMAC suggests changes, then the department does what it wanted to do in the first place. It can be very frustrating at times. It is kind of like the biologists sending in seasonal recommendations on harvest quotas, by the time their suggestions get acted upon they have been commented on by several levels of managers in the regions and in Olympia and rarely look any thing like what the biologists send in.



Edited for spelling

Pretty much right on.  Benefit to WDFW is they can show sportsman involvement in the process to the rest of the world and Commission, even though they do what they want anyway.  It's simply for show, nothing more.

[Special T]

If its just for show then we need to air the laundry so that all of the hook and bullet crowd know what they are up to.  Its the only way we will start to hold them accountable.

[THINK_N_ELK]

My understanding is, that DFW staff was having a hard time pulling the wool over the GMAC eyes. So the head guy (DFW staff) went to the DFW director and to get a fresh group of members. That way he cam manipulate the group before they get wise to his tricks.

[Wacenturion]

My understanding is, that DFW staff was having a hard time pulling the wool over the GMAC eyes. So the head guy (DFW staff) went to the DFW director and to get a fresh group of members. That way he cam manipulate the group before they get wise to his tricks.

Ware did you hear that.

[Curly]

 

[pianoman9701]

I applied. I think more hunters concerned about the decisions made by the commission should get involved. We should have a strong voice on this council and take part in working toward sound, scientifically-based game management decisions. I hope more of you apply. I believe there are 8 seats available.

[CedarPants]

I applied. I think more hunters concerned about the decisions made by the commission should get involved. We should have a strong voice on this council and take part in working toward sound, scientifically-based game management decisions. I hope more of you apply. I believe there are 8 seats available.

 

I'll be applying as well

[grundy53]

dave workman 

 

[grundy53]

I think the insight by a GMAC member can be VERY insightful. They get a peek at how the WDFW thinks. Win88 I think your right that it is VERY hard for them(GMAC members) to make change. HOWEVER when the WDFW claims that hunters have had "Input" and there were no issues, if we had some forewarning we could provide more document-able suggestions/Input Via Letters WFW and otherwise. 

I agree

[winshooter88]

Something you folks that are applying should know is that the Game Management Advisory Council does not advise the Washington State Game Commission, they serve under and for the Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. All of their input goes through Dave Ware to Phil Anderson, not to the game commission.

[pianoman9701]

Something you folks that are applying should know is that the Game Management Advisory Council does not advise the Washington State Game Commission, they serve under and for the Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. All of their input goes through Dave Ware to Phil Anderson, not to the game commission.

What's your point? I'm applying so that the Council has hunters on it and so that Mr. Ware doesn't only get the viewpoints of a council stacked with eco-wackos and wolf lovers. When you don't take part in the system you have little to say about it when it goes sideways. I may not have the ear of the commission (although, I'm not sure you're correct about that), but at least there will be a hunter on the council lending his opinions. I hope there are more than one.

[leed]

I am a member of the GMAC as an alternate. The meetings are open to the public however they are not well publicized if at all.  Wingshooter hit it perfectly on the head. The GMAC members do have some impact and do get insight on their thoughts but it is advisory in nature and WDFW uses our thoughts as a gauge of sportmsmens reaction to topics. It's not a failure but it could be a lot better. That will only occur with a change in leadership.

Becoming a member of the GMAC is not that hard, trying to make any difference through the GMAC is very, very hard. Most of the time the department brings in their ideas and GMAC suggests changes, then the department does what it wanted to do in the first place. It can be very frustrating at times. It is kind of like the biologists sending in seasonal recommendations on harvest quotas, by the time their suggestions get acted upon they have been commented on by several levels of managers in the regions and in Olympia and rarely look any thing like what the biologists send in.



Edited for spelling

[bearpaw]

I am glad to support you guys who have volunteered to represent us hunters. THANKS MUCH 

[Bob33]

Something you folks that are applying should know is that the Game Management Advisory Council does not advise the Washington State Game Commission, they serve under and for the Director of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. All of their input goes through Dave Ware to Phil Anderson, not to the game commission.

What's your point? I'm applying so that the Council has hunters on it and so that Mr. Ware doesn't only get the viewpoints of a council stacked with eco-wackos and wolf lovers. When you don't take part in the system you have little to say about it when it goes sideways. I may not have the ear of the commission (although, I'm not sure you're correct about that), but at least there will be a hunter on the council lending his opinions. I hope there are more than one.

I believe Winshooter's point was simply to correct a post that implied that GMAC provides direct input to the Commission. They do not.

The GMAC is comprised primarily of hunters. The issues I know of are these: (1) there are multiple "user groups" such as archers and muzzleloaders represented, and to some extent they are competing for a limited resource: big game. What one user group gets, another doesn't. (2) the group is advisory only; it has been stated and suggested that WDFW leadership may not pay much credence to what the group advises.

I would like to see the group gets more representatives that take a holistic view of hunting and support all hunters - not just a subset.

This is my opinion only now: hunting in Washington is becoming more and more about money, and less and less about hunters.  In the past several years there have been more raffles, more multi-season permits, a new permitting system designed to increase revenues, and other efforts that may help in the short run but ultimately hurt the regular hunter.

I hope some of our good members here are given an assignment and can bring about positive change.

[winshooter88]

Bob33 is correct, I was only clarifing that the GMAC does not report to the game commission. As far as the current membership being comprised of hunters he is also correct and that they have representation from all the different user groups. To my knowledge there are no greenies, animal rights advocates (wolf lovers) or eko-wackos on the GMAC. The same cannot be said for the game commission.

[pianoman9701]

Bob33 is correct, I was only clarifing that the GMAC does not report to the game commission. As far as the current membership being comprised of hunters he is also correct and that they have representation from all the different user groups. To my knowledge there are no greenies, animal rights advocates (wolf lovers) or eko-wackos on the GMAC. The same cannot be said for the game commission.

This is good to hear. I misinterpreted your earlier comments to mean that the participation of people on the council had little effect on the decisions of the commission. Hopefully, the game managers in the DFW reflect what the council has to say to the commission. Whether or not the commission actually does anything with that info is another game altogether. Thanks for clarifying, Winshoot.