WDFW LE Great Resource for HuntWA - Please Be Respectful

[pianoman9701]

UC, thanks for signing up for WFW. Hunting season throws things into low gear for a bit, but we'll be back in the swing after modern is done. Welcome to the team.

[ucwarden]

UC, thanks for signing up for WFW. Hunting season throws things into low gear for a bit, but we'll be back in the swing after modern is done. Welcome to the team.

Understood

[Broken Arrow]

Welcome UC. Interesting thread. I fortunately fall into that category where I have never had a bad experience in 20+ years in the woods and have I get checked and questioned on 30% of my outings. Nothing but respect for you guys.

[Tbar]

Curly,

No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.

Any chance of that getting changed?  Or should it not be changed? 

Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative.  Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........

Here's my view.

I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.

However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.

That is right on point.  Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself.  No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.

Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). 

[Curly]

I've only had good experiences when contacted by wardens.  Only been a handful of times that I've been contacted by wardens in my 30+ years of hunting and fishing in this state. 

The one bad experience was with a WDFW employee.  He was a biologist that had a very bad attitude and apparently wished he was an officer.  Bios apparently lack the training that officers are likely getting.  Maybe more training is in order for bios that are going to be representing WDFW out there. 

[Knocker of rocks]

Curly,

No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.

Any chance of that getting changed?  Or should it not be changed? 

Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative.  Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........

Here's my view.

I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.

However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.

That is right on point.  Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself.  No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.

Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). 

Would you want the DSHS to endorse candidates for Governor? 

[Curly]

Curly,

No state agency can give opinions on voter initiatives, this is not just limited to WDFW. They can only give opinions on bills in the legislature.

Any chance of that getting changed?  Or should it not be changed? 

Just doesn't seem right to set wildlife rules by voter initiative.  Voters in this state have proven to not be the brightest........

Here's my view.

I agree with you on the ability of the public to change wildlife laws.

However, I think if state agencies were allowed to provide their views on initiatives you would have a lot of people saying the state is lieing, brainwashing the public, etc. How often do we hear about that on this site? Personally, I think agencies should be able to, but I can understand why they cant.

That is right on point.  Also; keep in mind that getting a state agency to come up with a position on any legislation would be tough in itself.  No matter what side of the issue the agency took up, 1/2 of it's employees would disagree with that position.

Very well said. The other things people have to take into consideration is if the wdfw were to given opinions on the initiatives say in 1996 is perception of "conflict of interest". It would be a catch 22 being sworn to uphold the laws you spoke out against. This is a hypothetical situation of course but may illustrate the problems that could arise from state agencies providing opinions (even if it's right). 

Would you want the DSHS to endorse candidates for Governor?

No.  Point taken.  (That's what I like about this site; we can discuss things and I can get my head set straight).

Like I say, it was just back in '96 I figured most of WDFW were against the initiatives and I felt at the time that I wished they could have voiced their concern with the initiatives to try to get voters to see the light. 

Today, the way WDFW is going, I don't know if they would be against those initiatives if they were proposed today instead of back then.  So, I can see the benefit to keeping public agencies opinions out of initiatives.

I'm just frustrated with those initiatives and what they've done for increasing predators in the state. 

[pianoman9701]

The 1996 ban on hounds and baiting can be directly attributed to a lack of cohesion within the hunting community to come together and dispel the myths and lies perpetrated by the anti-hunting community. They're better organized and better funded than us. We really need a unified voice in this state. It's not as bad as it was, thanks to the internet, but there's still a long way to go.

[Wenatcheejay]

wcwarden,

     Welcome to the board. I congratulate you on your retirement. I am little surprised by your surprise that many people don't have good opinions of WDFW. The survey conducted showed that many, many hunters are not happy with the management of elk herds. This is not new. As to attitude of WDFW LE it is the same attitude people get towards LE in general accept, you are far more likely to make contact with a WDFW LE than general LE if you are simply in woods or on the water. The people who have bad experiences have reasons.  I look at WDFW as a service. This includes LE. It's that simple. I don't care for the "King's Guard" complex that some LE develop but whatever, that is on them. Always, LE is in charge of any and all contacts. I advise everyone to comply with any orders and simply know your rights and your responsibilities while in the field. This attitude serves me very well in real life. (Although a few people inside of H-W have razzed me  )

     There are so many special interest groups for what ever adventure wants to take place. We all throw money at it. Many people on this board know that if I believe in an organization I will donate my money towards it. I will also do time IRL. However, desire is useless without physical participation if there is any hope of any real change. The Archery season for me will be a NO GO next year. This year I bought both species multi-season tags. That's a big support of WDFW right there. But the seasons are so poor that will not happen next year. In fact, I am going out of State. The business end of WDFW is no longer a service I want to pay for. We will see if they do a better job in 2015.

If anyone really wants to make a difference start by making a personal commitment to attending at least one WDFW meeting this year. Many here, (any by that I mean a few.) Carry the water for the majority trying to represent this sport.  I for one am fed up with not being listened to by WDFW. I see them as viewing me as nothing more than a voluntary funding system. They will never stop devising ways to entertain me and them through gaming (gambling) regulations.   

Thanks for reading.

[fishseeker]

Welcome ucwarden! I'm one of the older members on here by age. I have seen a lot of changes since the Game dept. merged with the Dept. of Fisheries. Some good, some not so good. Never had a bad encounter with a gamie. In fact some have been downrite side splitting.Honks me off if I go a whole season not getting checked for tags. I was raised to respect LOE's which I do unless they earn otherwise. I would be onboard to TRY to effect change, but the way I see it now is the econutz have the power and money behind them. They can carry a LOUD voice without TRUE facts. Just look at what they are doing to logging and mining issuses in the west. Not just in Wa. but all the west. We need our voices to be heard! How can we do it?

[rtspring]

Can I be the spokesperson for our group?   

We need to come together! A show of force. Money is and always will be the driving factor.  When we all say, we will hunt elsewhere and do it not just say it. Maybe things will change... 

I personally spend alot on hunting, take that away from the state and it will hurt across the state and bigtime.  Arguing at some town hall meeting never gets anything done!

The WDFW has lied to our faces about transplanting wolves! What else have they lied about! I do not trust anything they say.

[ucwarden]

The 1996 ban on hounds and baiting can be directly attributed to a lack of cohesion within the hunting community to come together and dispel the myths and lies perpetrated by the anti-hunting community. They're better organized and better funded than us. We really need a unified voice in this state. It's not as bad as it was, thanks to the internet, but there's still a long way to go.

I remember the anti-hound and anti-baiting ads very well.  One thing they very effectively used against us, was the video those idiots took of letting their dogs "worry" (chew to pieces) on the bear cub.  The internet is a very powerful tool now, but it can also come back to bite you in the rear if you don't use common sense.

I have attended more than my fair share of WDFW commission meetings, and some of the folks who came in to represent hunting groups didn't cast us in a very good light. 

The anti's are very well organized, and well funded, and you rarely see them fight among themselves.  It seems that often the exact opposite is true of sportsmen.  For example; we will see the archery hunters complain about rifle hunters and vice-versa. 

That is why I would like to see a cohesive uniform group, which represents all sportsmen.
RMEF is a fantastic organization, and in my opinion is the most powerful hunting organization in the state.  We should all look at following their lead, and going even further.

[ucwarden]

Can I be the spokesperson for our group?   

We need to come together! A show of force. Money is and always will be the driving factor.  When we all say, we will hunt elsewhere and do it not just say it. Maybe things will change... 

I personally spend alot on hunting, take that away from the state and it will hurt across the state and bigtime.  Arguing at some town hall meeting never gets anything done!

The WDFW has lied to our faces about transplanting wolves! What else have they lied about! I do not trust anything they say.

I am not sure lines such as "WDFW has lied to our faces" is going to get us very far.  Start with a feather before you move to using the hammer.

[Gringo31]

I took many NATRS classes but changed my major and know some guys that finished the program.  I quit because I wanted actual money    But I do understand your passion as I at one point headed down that road.

My complaints with WDFW are many.  They should be the experts.  They have been infiltrated by a bunch of no common sense, greenie freaks that spend most of their time in an office on the west side.  The true people on the ground that make a difference are few.  Many of those guys are pretty sharp and if asked one on one, can give you some real insight. 

WDFW goal is to continue to increase costs and decrease opportunity while telling us how good that is for us.  They have virtually zero predator management, seem to believe in perservation vs conservation and spend money on polls that tell us that gardening is the top outdoor activity for washington state. 

The more I learn, the more I think I wasted my time learning.  You go to meetings and they've made up their mind already.....

However, I love it when someone who knows so much about it is a clear thinking and willing to offer help or advice.  Glad to have you along!   

[ucwarden]

I took many NATRS classes but changed my major and know some guys that finished the program.  I quit because I wanted actual money    But I do understand your passion as I at one point headed down that road.

My complaints with WDFW are many.  They should be the experts.  They have been infiltrated by a bunch of no common sense, greenie freaks that spend most of their time in an office on the west side.  The true people on the ground that make a difference are few.  Many of those guys are pretty sharp and if asked one on one, can give you some real insight. 

WDFW goal is to continue to increase costs and decrease opportunity while telling us how good that is for us.  They have virtually zero predator management, seem to believe in perservation vs conservation and spend money on polls that tell us that gardening is the top outdoor activity for washington state. 

The more I learn, the more I think I wasted my time learning.  You go to meetings and they've made up their mind already.....

However, I love it when someone who knows so much about it is a clear thinking and willing to offer help or advice.  Glad to have you along!   

Very well said.  If we can get an organized group together, and that's a big if, then we can start working on issues which are common to all of us.  We will never change the whole "system" as it is way too big, and the mindset of the whole country (and especially this very liberal state) have changed dramatically in recend years, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. 

If someone can get a group started (say with Washington for Wildlife), then we can take some baby-steps, and see if it's worth continuing. 

When I was working in enforcement, I was rather well known for my line "I would rather fight a fight and lose, than to not fight at all".