GMAC meeting 6-7-14

[idahohuntr]

My personal unofficial notes of the recent GMAC meeting...(much shorter than previous updates of these meetings):

- We had an update on the hoof disease issue.  I just posted my thoughts and some key points from WDFW on this complex issue.  Dr. Mansfield gave a very good presentation and pointed out that the 15 experts on the independent panel are making progress on this issue, although not nearly as much as all of us would like.  The wdfw website has a lot of good information on this issue.

-Next we had an overview of the GoHunt tool and private lands program by Brian Calkins.  There have been several improvements and the department is making progress.  They are working to update property maps so hunters have aerial maps with property boundaries for all FFTH property.  The program is a work in progress and there was discussion about whether the access program is prioritized appropriately.  Some regions seem to be doing well, but other regions don't seem to be very successful getting properties enrolled or updating maps.

-There was a wolf update...but not much new information.  They are working to trap and collar wolves right now and have some in many packs, but many collars are nearing their end battery life and need replaced.  They believe there are packs in SE Washington (Wenaha), but they have yet to confirm a pack  at this time in that area.  They have photos of a wolf in klickitat county, but no confirmed pack.
-WDFW provided results of public opinion surveys that showed ~88% of Washington residents support hunting.  Roughly 60+% of respondents supported some form of wolf control if there were livestock problems or declines in ungulate herds caused by wolves.  However, only 38% of folks supported wolf seasons for recreational hunting purposes...so I wouldn't hold out for any wolf tag anytime soon  

-Allocation Committee updated the group on their recent meeting.  I believe one big take away was that comparing youth, senior, and disabled opportunities it appears youth were not receiving their fair share of antlerless elk tags.  The committee recommended correcting this disparity.

-Game management plan update and the new three year package are being updated.  Much discussion occurred about various topics, and I can't recall them all.  On weapons there was some discussion of legalizing expandable broadheads and .223 caliber rifles for big game hunting. 

Many other specific comments on a range of topics that I have forgotten...perhaps other GMAC folks can fill in the blanks or give their perspectives.

[grundy53]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.

sent from my typewriter

[idahohuntr]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.

sent from my typewriter

Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk?  But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.

[bigtex]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.

Don't like it. 

[billythekidrock]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.

Don't like it. 

 

[grundy53]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.

sent from my typewriter

Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk?  But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.

There are quite a few states where .223 is legal for deer. Then again there a lot of States where expandable broadheads are legal..


sent from my typewriter

[bobcat]

Wyoming just made 223 the minimum caliber for deer and antelope, I believe two years ago. Just FYI

[bbarnes]

What is the GMAC?

[bobcat]

Game Management Advisory Council.

They're the ones who, in 2010, approved of the ridiculous changes to the draw system, which Dave Ware told them had "broad public support." And, nobody on this board had ever heard anything about those changes until it was basically a done deal.

[billythekidrock]

Thanks for the update.

[bobcat]

Thanks for the update.

And, I have to say it's awesome having a member of the GMAC on this board who is willing to share information freely.

[jackelope]

Thanks for the update.

And, I have to say it's awesome having a member of the GMAC on this board who is willing to share information freely.

Thanks for the update.

There are 3 members that are GMAC members I believe.

[winshooter88]

Bobcat,

Just to clear up a point, The GMAC neither approves or disapproves anything. They talk about the issues before them and give their input and the input from the people they represent, ( archery, modern firearms, muzzleloaders and various areas and conservation groups around the state). This input then goes to the director of the WDFW to assist him as he and his staff make the decisions about managing the states big game and hunting seasons for that big game. Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr, I am a member of the GMAC.

[huntnphool]

Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.

sent from my typewriter

Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk?  But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.

There are quite a few states where .223 is legal for deer. Then again there a lot of States where expandable broadheads are legal..


sent from my typewriter

 Been legal in Montana for quite some time.

[bobcat]

Bobcat,

Just to clear up a point, The GMAC neither approves or disapproves anything. They talk about the issues before them and give their input and the input from the people they represent, ( archery, modern firearms, muzzleloaders and various areas and conservation groups around the state). This input then goes to the director of the WDFW to assist him as he and his staff make the decisions about managing the states big game and hunting seasons for that big game. Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr< I am a member of the GMAC.

Yes, I know all that. I guess my point was that the first time I had ever heard of the GMAC was when Dave Ware told us that the changes to the special permit system had the approval of the GMAC and also had broad public support. I just thought it was odd that at that time, nobody on this forum had ever heard of the GMAC, and none of us had ever heard of the proposed changes to the permit system. Dave Ware told us that the proposals had been in the works for over a year. Yet nobody on this forum knew anything about it, and we had a couple weeks to comment and then it was a done deal.

I wasn't real happy with the GMAC at that point, and I knew Dave Ware was lying about the "broad public support" part. But that's in the past. I don't hold it against the GMAC, I put all the blame on WDFW and especially Dave Ware.