Does WDFW know it has an image problem?

[RadSav]

With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups.  I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state.  The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that.  When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected,  that is simply ridiculous.  And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?

Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%

But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?

WDFW currently gets $107M from the feds, only a small part of that is Pittman-Robertson. A lot of it has to do with the federally managed/protected species in WA. As an example three WDFW Officers are paid for by the National Marine Fisheries Service for federal fisheries enforcement by WDFW. WDFW gets federal funding for all sorts of things.

P-R is primarily for wildlife/sport fish restoration, public ranges and hunter education.  It is not a general fund for WDFW or any other state agencies.  It was mismanaged as such for a long time, but it is suppose to have been corrected by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act in November 2000.

In February The House of Representatives passed an amendment to P-R though an omnibus bill called Sportsmen’s Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013. To what extent I do not yet know, but I expect we will be getting some good information on exactly what it entails soon.

[Bob33]

I thought I read that PR money dispersed to WA this year was $20M.  The money in is from all kinds of sporting goods, not just hunting.  I've heard that the feds decide to divvy it up among the states based on the amount of licenses sold in each state, and that Alaska gets the most back mainly due to all the fishing licenses.

It is not from all kinds of sporting goods.

Texas gets more than any other state; Alaska is second in funding received.

[RadSav]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here  www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf

[snowpack]

A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.

Is this a nationwide thing or just Washington graduates not buying Washington hunting licenses?  Since the Hunter's Ed is accepted around most state, I'd imagine they are getting Idaho and Montana licenses. 

[Bob33]

A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.

Is this a nationwide thing or just Washington graduates not buying Washington hunting licenses?  Since the Hunter's Ed is accepted around most state, I'd imagine they are getting Idaho and Montana licenses. 

It's not unique to Washington. There are several theories, one being that many students are taking the class to learn about firearm safety only. For $5, where else can you do that? They do not intend to hunt.

The other factor is that after the class is taken plans change: Uncle Ed can't take the boy hunting, football practice gets in the way, land access is more difficult than imagined, etc. etc.

And yes, some take the course to hunt out of state.

[RadSav]

The other factor is that after the class is taken plans change: Uncle Ed can't take the boy hunting, football practice gets in the way, land access is more difficult than imagined, etc. etc.

Or the reality of being out of cell range is just too much for many of todays youth

[Curly]

With the lack of a place to hunt (unless you pay for access now) there will be even less new hunters.  And even if a new hunter does get out and hunt, success comes very hard these days with the lack of animals, so I see a continued drop in hunter numbers in this state.

And another thing, why would new hunters apply into the special permit application system when they see so many people with a dozen or more years of applying not getting drawn.  They would have little hope.  WDFW really should have eliminated the point system, but instead they went for the money grab and added category after category to keep people hooked on the system.

[timberfaller]

Or the reality of being out of cell range is just too much for many of todays youth

YA that!!  if not cell phones, play station/xbox!!

[pianoman9701]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here  www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf

That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. 

[RadSav]

I do not know for sure as I haven't worked on that side of the firearm industry.  But I would assume it falls under "Firearm parts/accessories.

[Bob33]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here  www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf

That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. 

No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.

[pianoman9701]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here  www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf

That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. 

No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.

That seems inconsistent when you look at the list of archery products which are taxed, including sights (and everything else you need to shoot archery). Oh well, I'm happy to be able to say I do my part in conservation.

[singleshot12]

With the lack of a place to hunt (unless you pay for access now) there will be even less new hunters.  And even if a new hunter does get out and hunt, success comes very hard these days with the lack of animals, so I see a continued drop in hunter numbers in this state.

And another thing, why would new hunters apply into the special permit application system when they see so many people with a dozen or more years of applying not getting drawn.  They would have little hope.  WDFW really should have eliminated the point system, but instead they went for the money grab and added category after category to keep people hooked on the system.

It really is one sad joke that is being played here

[RadSav]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/

Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here  www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf

That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. 

No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.

Guess I should have made peep sights for rifles instead of bows!  Hard to believe Leupold decided to get into archery sights opening then up to all the additional accounting and liability of FET when they weren't already doing that.  Maybe they just loved the Pig Man too much

[bearpaw]

Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)

Good question! 

Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:

1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.

While this idea has good intent, the costs would be huge!

Instead of having a Director of the Fish Program you would have what, a saltwater director, freshwater director, shellfish director, etc? On the customer service level (the people answering the phones) you have people in the fish program, so would you now need customer service representatives for all those different programs?

There is already a manager for each of these sections, currently you can call and ask for a specific dept and you get a desk person in that dept, I really don't see much additional cost. More of an emphasis on goals and responsibilities for each dept.