Free: Contests & Raffles.
Quote from: lokidog on November 23, 2014, 09:32:30 PMQuote from: AspenBud on November 19, 2014, 11:36:54 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 10:56:50 AMAfter the experiences of both MT and ID, the scope of WA's plan is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Trusting the WDFW to "play this out" is the last thing we should be doing.Many of us have been involved with this issue from the start and have put great effort, and still are, into letting the WDFW know what we think about it. For you to say "all talk and no action", means that your head is in the dark places. The action started years ago and continues today. Just because you just jumped off the turnip truck on this issue doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.Mark my words, even if you get WDFW turned around on the issue you still have the bigger problem of the voters. Something has to be done to keep wildlife management out of the hands of voters. All it will take is one well worded, and funded, initiative.And this, herein, lies the problem. We (conservatives) will have a majority in the WA legislature next year, will we not? Maybe this is the time to pass a law that game management is done by professionals, not the general public via ballot initiatives?I absolutely agree. I've been saying for a while now that the model in Michigan is one to eye for Washington. HSUS can fund their anti wolf hunt initiatives there but the results have no teeth since the legislature put game management in the hands of the NRC and out of the hands of voters. Something like that could even put hound hunting back on the map here.
Quote from: AspenBud on November 19, 2014, 11:36:54 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 10:56:50 AMAfter the experiences of both MT and ID, the scope of WA's plan is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Trusting the WDFW to "play this out" is the last thing we should be doing.Many of us have been involved with this issue from the start and have put great effort, and still are, into letting the WDFW know what we think about it. For you to say "all talk and no action", means that your head is in the dark places. The action started years ago and continues today. Just because you just jumped off the turnip truck on this issue doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.Mark my words, even if you get WDFW turned around on the issue you still have the bigger problem of the voters. Something has to be done to keep wildlife management out of the hands of voters. All it will take is one well worded, and funded, initiative.And this, herein, lies the problem. We (conservatives) will have a majority in the WA legislature next year, will we not? Maybe this is the time to pass a law that game management is done by professionals, not the general public via ballot initiatives?
Quote from: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 10:56:50 AMAfter the experiences of both MT and ID, the scope of WA's plan is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Trusting the WDFW to "play this out" is the last thing we should be doing.Many of us have been involved with this issue from the start and have put great effort, and still are, into letting the WDFW know what we think about it. For you to say "all talk and no action", means that your head is in the dark places. The action started years ago and continues today. Just because you just jumped off the turnip truck on this issue doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.Mark my words, even if you get WDFW turned around on the issue you still have the bigger problem of the voters. Something has to be done to keep wildlife management out of the hands of voters. All it will take is one well worded, and funded, initiative.
After the experiences of both MT and ID, the scope of WA's plan is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Trusting the WDFW to "play this out" is the last thing we should be doing.Many of us have been involved with this issue from the start and have put great effort, and still are, into letting the WDFW know what we think about it. For you to say "all talk and no action", means that your head is in the dark places. The action started years ago and continues today. Just because you just jumped off the turnip truck on this issue doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.
They're still claiming 52 wolves huh?
Quote from: AspenBud on November 26, 2014, 07:19:11 AMQuote from: lokidog on November 23, 2014, 09:32:30 PMQuote from: AspenBud on November 19, 2014, 11:36:54 AMQuote from: pianoman9701 on November 19, 2014, 10:56:50 AMAfter the experiences of both MT and ID, the scope of WA's plan is so ridiculous as to be absurd. Trusting the WDFW to "play this out" is the last thing we should be doing.Many of us have been involved with this issue from the start and have put great effort, and still are, into letting the WDFW know what we think about it. For you to say "all talk and no action", means that your head is in the dark places. The action started years ago and continues today. Just because you just jumped off the turnip truck on this issue doesn't mean it's the same for the rest of us.Mark my words, even if you get WDFW turned around on the issue you still have the bigger problem of the voters. Something has to be done to keep wildlife management out of the hands of voters. All it will take is one well worded, and funded, initiative.And this, herein, lies the problem. We (conservatives) will have a majority in the WA legislature next year, will we not? Maybe this is the time to pass a law that game management is done by professionals, not the general public via ballot initiatives?I absolutely agree. I've been saying for a while now that the model in Michigan is one to eye for Washington. HSUS can fund their anti wolf hunt initiatives there but the results have no teeth since the legislature put game management in the hands of the NRC and out of the hands of voters. Something like that could even put hound hunting back on the map here.What? Voters just shot down two separate wolf management initiatives in Michigan...
Is there a wolf tag in Washington? Or a wolf season? If there's no tags or season how can it be poaching?