State game departments may start to figure it out

[bearpaw]

Hmmm. Wa. res fees dont seem low to me, on the contrary.

That's because we don't have the non-resident demand that many western states do.  The ones that do can subidize artficially low resident prices while charging exorbitant prices from the non-residents.

The only reason there isn't more NR demand is because WDFW produces a poor product.

Well, not that I disagree with the "poor product," but it's not really the fault of the WDFW. They're trying to provide a product in a small state with an extremely high human population, in comparison to other western states. The only way to improve the product would be to decrease the number of deer and elk tags issued each year. And nobody wants that.

How about a little predator management. Remember the data that Kain put together on cougar impacts. 

When Idaho wolves started impacting ungulates Idaho offered two bear tags, two cougar tags, and increased the predator seasons in the areas most impacted by wolves.

WDFW has tried to reduce cougar harvest. 

[bearpaw]

Studies have shown 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year. I don't remember exactly how many cougar are estimated but I think it's about 3000.

3000 x 25 = 75,000
3000 x 50 = 150,000

Reduce the cougar population by 50% and there will be 37,500 to 75,000 more deer per year on the landscape. 

[bobcat]

I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?

I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.

[bigtex]

I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?

I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.

 
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.

[bearpaw]

People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."

You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.

WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.

I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.

Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.

Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.

I understand that completely.

But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.

In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.

WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.

It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.

I think there is an easy answer to this. If WDFW can't sell the product then only monitor endangered species at a minimum as required by federal law. Unless there is a federal law forcing WDFW to monitor then let USFWS earn their keep.

[Mudman]

I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?

I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.

Hit Thompson cr and you will see em eventually.

[bearpaw]

I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?

I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.

 
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.

If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.

[bearpaw]

You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.

[bigtex]

People need to consider the states they compare WDFW to when they look at who is "better."

You can't compare WDFW to a wildlife agency that doesn't border the saltwater. Why? Because those agencies have a far fewer management load then coastal agencies.

WDFW's biggest funding expenditure is not enforcement, wildlife, habitat, or licensing, but rather the fish program. Do these inland states have to manage crab, sturgeon, shrimp, salmon, halibut, etc? No.

I am sure if you were to look at places like Wyoming or Colorado their budget would be almost all wildlife related.

Prior to the merger of WDFW, the Wildlife Dept was largely user funded, Fisheries Dept was all general fund. Merger happened and ever since the funding has shifted more and more towards the wildlife fund. About 3 years ago the legislature passed a bill directing all commerical and recreational fees to the wildlife fund since there were still some of the smaller licenses going to the general fund.

Just look at how a wildlife officer's job is different in coastal states vs inland. The inland states typically run their LE program where the officer is an LEO and biologist, why? Because once hunting season is over they can do their bio duties because there is no crab, salmon, steelhead, etc season to work. But the officers who work in coastal states have LEO duties 24/7. And in fact, prior to the merger/creatin of WDFW, a Dept of Wildlife Agent was both an LEO and a bio. Merger happened and now the wildlife officers were responsible for all fish enforceemnt, and fisheries officers responsible for wildlife enforcement.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. With all these varied resources WDFW has more types of products to sell than other F&G agencies, again manage the products well and you will have even more sales with all the diversity in WA.

I understand that completely.

But how is WDFW suppose to "sell" a federally protected salmon run (as an example) which under federal law people cannot possess/take/fish for? WDFW then has to spend money to manage and enforce the fish run but won't get any money in return because people can't fish for it. On the fish/shellfish side WDFW has a lot more problems with the "co-managers" (tribes). It can be hard to manage a run when the co-manager is managing it another way.

In comparison the Pink/Humpy salmon run is nuts and brings in huge revenues every other year to WDFW in terms of licensing. There is a very small tribal/commerical pink fishery.

WA has federally protected marine mammals, hundreds/thousands of rivers/streams that have federally protected salmon (all species except Pink), federally protect steelhead, federally protected columbia river smelt, and several federally protected puget sound rockfish species. WDFW has to manage and enforce those closures/runs but get no money in return. I highly doubt a bass population (example) in a lake in Colorado is federally protected.

It is a lot easier to sell a fishery/hunt when you can actually legally take them.

I think there is an easy answer to this. If WDFW can't sell the product then only monitor endangered species at a minimum as required by federal law. Unless there is a federal law forcing WDFW to monitor then let USFWS earn their keep.

The ESA does require states to manage/monitor with USFWS and NMFS. States do receive some funding, but not enough to fully fund the management of the protected species.

[sled]

Studies have shown 1 cougar eats 25 to 50 deer per year. I don't remember exactly how many cougar are estimated but I think it's about 3000.

3000 x 25 = 75,000
3000 x 50 = 150,000

Reduce the cougar population by 50% and there will be 37,500 to 75,000 more deer per year on the landscape. 

  I hunt 340.  Every year I find atleast  3 to 8 cougar kills  between may and November.

[bobcat]

If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.

Good point, there probably is more that should be done to try to increase harvest. I was thinking more of the area near me, where the season is pretty generous, yet very few cougars are killed. I don't understand why it's not a year around season.

[bigtex]

I agree, reducing the cougar population would be a good thing. But without hound hunting as an option, does it really matter how many cougar tags a person can buy?

I've purchased a cougar tag every year since they became OTC tags. But, I have never even seen a cougar, except in pictures from my trail camera.

 
And again, we won't have statewide cougar hound hunting without legislative approval.

If you are interested in the facts, cougar are being harvested without hounds. Numerous GMU's closed early because the quotas are so low. Even without hound hunting cougar populations could be reduced with longer seasons, even year around hunting.

I am not saying they aren't being harvested. But we all know the easiest/most effective way to hunt cougars is via hounds, and for bears it is bears/dogs.

[JLS]

You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.

Not with the crop damage payout system the state has.

[Mudman]

I wish it was a year season.  Maybe we are looking at this wrong.  Maybe we should embrace the fact that we have really good cat hunting now and focus on cougars more?  If It was year around I think I would, and I know where some are. 

[bearpaw]

You guys can make all the excuses for WDFW that you want, but if there were going to be 25% layoffs due to lack of welfare (general fund money), I bet WDFW could find a way to make this state's ungulate herds and other species far more productive.

Not with the crop damage payout system the state has.

Another easy answer, if legislators want to pay for crop damage let them do it from the general fund.