Senator Asking For Washington Hunter, Angler Input On Fee Increases

[Bob33]

Most conservation organizations have annual membership fees in the $25 to $50 range.

There is also quite a bit that can be done to support these organizations as a free volunteer.

At a minimum, simply voicing support for them versus picking them apart for some minor issue is usually helpful.

[Oh Mah]

25 - 50 no problem,who are they and what have they done so far?

[Bob33]

25 - 50 no problem,who are they and what have they done so far?

Washington Wild Sheep, RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Mule Deer Foundation, Safari Club and others all have membership fees in that range. Pick one for a specie you hunt. As a side note I've attended events from several of these and have gained information, and made contacts and friends that are of great value to me.

[Oh Mah]

These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.

[Oh Mah]

LIKE I SAID BEFORE LOL,IS THERE A LAWYER IN THIS PLACE?OR ARE WE ALL JUST FULL OF COMPLAINTS?

[Bob33]

When RMEF secures land from development, it helps not just elk but deer, small game, and a variety of other wildlife. That benefits all hunters, in part by enhancing the reputation of hunters as conservationists.

[Hunter4Life]

These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.

The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect.  What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct.  While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does.  All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia.  So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.

I have to stress the lobbyist part.  As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist.  Very important.  We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist.  If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages?  Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige.  Grassroots  involvement adds to our influence.

I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years.  I have been a successful campaign manager several times.  I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC.  I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention.  This stuff is in my blood.  I bleed working for hunters' rights.  I live it and love it.  It is my passion.  There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights.  I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope.  The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster.  I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us.  I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior.  I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also.  I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.

I see positive things on the legislative side side also.  We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters.  That is positive.  The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause.  That is positive.  I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.

This forum is a great format for us to spread the word.  We don't need to attack each other.  The antis do that well enough.  On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy. 

[Bob33]

These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.

The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect.  What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct.  While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does.  All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia.  So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.

I have to stress the lobbyist part.  As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist.  Very important.  We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist.  If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages?  Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige.  Grassroots  involvement adds to our influence.

I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years.  I have been a successful campaign manager several times.  I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC.  I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention.  This stuff is in my blood.  I bleed working for hunters' rights.  I live it and love it.  It is my passion.  There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights.  I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope.  The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster.  I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us.  I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior.  I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also.  I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.

I see positive things on the legislative side side also.  We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters.  That is positive.  The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause.  That is positive.  I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.

This forum is a great format for us to spread the word.  We don't need to attack each other.  The antis do that well enough.  On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy.

Thanks for the great insight. To your point about the Dept of Interior at the federal level, it's fantastic to know that our new President has a concern for hunters and is acting on it:

Morris Rodgers: I was never offered the Interior job
FRIDAY, DEC. 16, 2016, 6:03 P.M.

By Jim Camden
jimc@spokesman.com
(360) 664-2598

As news organizations around the country proclaimed Cathy McMorris Rodgers a sure bet to be the next interior secretary and politicians in her Eastern Washington district quickly announced campaigns for her congressional seat, the person most in the dark was McMorris Rodgers herself.

In her first extended remarks on the events of the last few weeks, the congresswoman said she never got a call from President-elect Donald Trump or his transition team saying she was going to be offered the Cabinet position before or after reports from unnamed sources said she was the likely pick. She also never got a call several days later that Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana was nominated for the job.

“My colleagues were coming up and congratulating me on the floor” of the House when the first reports surfaced, McMorris Rodgers said Friday. “I said, ‘There has not been an offer.’ ”

The Eastern Washington Republican met with Trump, first in New Jersey before Thanksgiving after receiving a call from Mike Pence, the vice president-elect and chairman of the Trump transition team. She was named a vice-chairwoman of the team, and met with him again in Trump Tower in New York City this month.

That spot on the transition team didn’t give her any special insight into who would be nominated for interior secretary.

In neither conversation did Trump offer her the job of interior secretary and the discussions were much broader, she said. They talked about issues the department handles, including better management, expanding access for uses like recreation and hunting, and opening up more partnerships with states and the tribes.

“He wanted to know what steps we could be taking,” she said. “He’s very interested in more access on federal lands.”

But they also talked about other subjects, like jobs and the economy. “When you spend time with the president-elect, it is rapid fire,” McMorris Rodgers said.

So when national news organizations started quoting unnamed sources with the transition team late last week that she was the leading candidate for the Cabinet post, McMorris Rodgers said it was completely unexpected. She and her staff refused to comment when reporters from around the country called because “we didn’t have any news.”

That continued into this week when the name of Zinke, a one-term congressman from Montana, surfaced – again based on unnamed sources – and later was officially confirmed as Trump’s pick.

Asked if she thought that was an odd way to handle the transition, McMorris Rodgers replied: “It’s up to the president-elect as to how he will do this.”

A Wall Street Journal report on Friday quoted unnamed “people familiar with the pick” as saying Donald Trump Jr. influenced his father’s choice of interior secretary because Zinke and the younger Trump are avid hunters, and sportsmen’s groups preferred the Montana congressman over McMorris Rodgers. There were also concerns, the newspaper’s sources said, of her support for a 2011 bill that called for selling off surplus federal lands in 10 Western states.

Zinke and McMorris Rodgers both met with Trump on Monday, and Journal sources also said the president-elect asked the congresswoman to address some of her past criticisms of him.

In her meeting with Trump and his son, “Mr. Trump cited a ‘long list’ of things the congresswoman had criticized him for and asked her to address them, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting,” the Journal reported. “Ms. McMorris Rodgers didn’t walk back her comments.”

McMorris Rodgers was not an early supporter of Trump; she did vote for him in the state’s presidential primary, after he was all but assured of the nomination, but said she wasn’t enthusiastic about it. After a tape of Trump making lewd comments about women surfaced in the fall, she condemned the remarks but said she still supported his candidacy.

“I made it clear that I supported him throughout the campaign and that I continue to support him,” she said Friday. “When candidate Donald Trump said things that I didn’t necessarily agree with, I would call him on it.”

That will continue, she said. Asked if Trump agreed with that, she replied: “I’m not sure I can speculate on that.”

The selection of a new Cabinet is proceeding “under budget and ahead of schedule,” but it is taking place in a much more public fashion than previous changes in administrations, she said.

“It’s playing out in real time,” she said, and reflects Trump’s fondness for digital media. But that also provides extra transparency when decisions are made, she added. “I think it says he is shaking things up. He’s doing things in a new way and I think that’s why he was elected.”

It also means that rumors of an appointment get quickly reported. Some House colleagues began angling for her GOP leadership position and three Republicans and one Democrat in Spokane announced plans to run for her not-yet vacant congressional seat. Asked about the rush to replace her, McMorris Rodgers laughed and said: “It’s great that there’s such a strong bench.”

She added she’s concentrating on working with Trump on issues as a member of Congress.


http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/dec/16/rep-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-i-was-never-offered-the/

[Special T]

Most conservation organizations have annual membership fees in the $25 to $50 range.

There is also quite a bit that can be done to support these organizations as a free volunteer.

At a minimum, simply voicing support for them versus picking them apart for some minor issue is usually helpful.

Imo the big  understated mission of conservation organizations  is NOT to get involved in hunting issues. I used to belong to DU and it appears that I Need to look at SCI or some other ORG  that purely represents hunting.

If you read up on CCA and payed attention to BigTex comments what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together. 

These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.

The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect.  What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct.  While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does.  All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia.  So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.

I have to stress the lobbyist part.  As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist.  Very important.  We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist.  If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages?  Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige.  Grassroots  involvement adds to our influence.

I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years.  I have been a successful campaign manager several times.  I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC.  I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention.  This stuff is in my blood.  I bleed working for hunters' rights.  I live it and love it.  It is my passion.  There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights.  I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope.  The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster.  I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us.  I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior.  I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also.  I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.

I see positive things on the legislative side side also.  We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters.  That is positive.  The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause.  That is positive.  I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.

This forum is a great format for us to spread the word.  We don't need to attack each other.  The antis do that well enough.  On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy.

[Bob33]

.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together. 

It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.

None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.

[bigtex]

.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together. 

It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.

None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.

Agreed. It's just like how at times the different weapon type groups argue. Archery guys want more days then rifle, muzzleloader want more than archery, etc. The previous was just an example, it doesn't do anything other than break us hunters apart.

[NWWA Hunter]

A large part of the reason our voice is smaller is that we do not stick together.  Bow is better than rifle.  Traditional bow is better than these new age bows.  I will never pay private trespass and only hunt public. Guided vs unguided.  Trophy hunting vs i see its eyes it dies.  Native vs non native.  Hunters with money and hunters without.  Huge scoring trophies vs a trophy in the eye of the beholder. I constantly see posts where the person says "It is not the biggest but....".  As if their trophy is not important. We all have the same goals.  TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS IN OUR OWN LEGAL WAY. The anti's send letters, join groups and put money forth.  If I ask a friend for $20 to get a free magazine and $25 knife so DU, SCI, RMEF etc can have their name on their registrar they balk at the cost.  These names on paper give our hunters power. This is how you combat the antis. The antis who don't have money to contribute contribute time for rallies and protests.  Yet we as hunters don't.  We complain, complain, complain.  I know all our conservation groups have faults. BUT, what is better.  Supporting a group with faults and banding together or loosing it all.  In this state if we do not come together we will loose it all. I GUARANTEE that hunting will become a rich mans sport in 50 years if we do not stick together. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE support one or all groups with our time and $.  $5 each from 150000 sportsmen in this state goes a long way.

[Bob33]

It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.

[JLS]

It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.

This is so true Bob.  It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.

I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it.  It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members.  An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition.  Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.

I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;

1)  A sound, science based approach to wildlife management, even if that science doesn't always jive with what we our biases want us to believe.  At times, science based foundations may contradict other science, and we should always be pushing for open minded research to sort out the BS from the reality.

2)  Maximizing opportunity so long as it isn't damaging to the resource.

3)  Continued PR and educational campaigns for those folks who don't dislike hunting, but also don't understand what Teddy Roosevelt environmentalism is.

4)  Seeking out ways to expand public access to hunting whenever and wherever possible.

[huntnphool]

It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.

This is so true Bob.  It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.

I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it.  It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members.  An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition.  Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.

I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;

1)  A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.

 Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies.