Major wdfw overhaul

[olyguy79]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

Sad but true.

I can tell you that if the grammar/spelling isn't correct, or it has obvious falsehoods the letter/opinion essentially disappears as meaningless. This is both for politicians and agencies/commissions.

[DaveMonti]

Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

That goes for anything, not just hunting issues!   

[olyguy79]

I personally believe a big hit to their pocketbook is the only thing that will open their eyes. I would have no problem holding on to the $200 plus that I typically fork over for one year, if only I could convince about 10,000 other guys to do the same..

And that $2,000,000 hold out equates to about 0.45% of WDFW's budget. Drop in the bucket.

[huntnphool]

One major issue is hunters are split into those that want to manage for quantity and those that want to manage for quality.

 There are far too many squeaky wheels that no matter how hard the herds get hit, how low the numbers go, they absolutely insist on being able to buy a tag and hunt every year.......... and everyone else be damned!

 http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,219302.msg2917219.html#msg2917219

Or those who just care about "their" season. It's the old archery vs. rifle vs. muzzleloader screw each other drama.

 Agreed

[huntnphool]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

 Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?

 Looking back, it was the "redneck hunters" that got that one right...........at one hell of cost to the herd.

[bigtex]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?

I'm not saying I agree with them. Just saying how it works.

[huntnphool]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?

I'm not saying I agree with them. Just saying how it works.

 Oh I know, just refreshing everyone's memory.

[bigmacc]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.

[bigtex]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.

Never was a Fish & Game Department in WA. There was a Dept. of Fisheries and a Dept. of Wildlife (prior to that they were the Dept. of Game). In 1994 the two departments merged to create WDFW.

Again, I'm not saying how it is now is "right" it's just how it is.

[bigmacc]

Sorry "Game Dept"

[olyguy79]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.

I agree there are a lost of special interest groups involved. But there also weren't special interest groups in the 60s, 70s or early 80s. It's not like the dept. ignored them, they simply weren't around, or at least not as powerful as today.

[eliandsky]

Thank you FnG for all your efforts in helping conserve what everyone on here fights for. Good luck to you all in 18

[Special T]

Us hunters are a head strong independent group.  Us organizing Is much like herding cats.  An honest assessment is necessary in order for us to move forward.

To the general legislature our numbers arnt that big... especially since we don't speak with a unified voice.

Our numbers are large to the WDFW... OUR message to them is often as diverse as we are head strong.

A boycott won't be effective because most don't have the willpower... I know I've tried for a few years.

The WDFW operate out of fear. They are not proactive. They fear lawsuits from anti hunting groups, pissing off sportsmen, losing ESA grants, lowest department morral...  In short they lack leadership.

Hopefully some of you see a trend in my observations.  Leadership won't come from the department so it must come from sportsmen. It is our only hope, and it has been our weakness that has allowed Anti hunters to prey upon us.

Some of you know I'm a long time member of Silver Arrow Bowmen...  a few years ago the Washington State Archery Association, Washington Bowhunters, & Traditional Bowhunters of Washington worked together to petition the state on several archery related issues. It required work to forge agreement amongst the Archery clubs, but when we approached the state we were very sucessful in advancing change. Sportsmen need to expand on this model of cooperation.

Why is it that anti groups succeed where we fail? They are organised and portray that they speak for a large block of voters. The success of the Archery coalition is proof that if we come together and speak with one voice we can make a difference.

Most of us have a passion in differing areas. Most of us belong to some kind of conservation, shooting club, firearm or hunting advocacy group. I think it is time for involved members in the 2a foundation, NRA, gun clubs, archery organizations, conservation groups ect to pressure them, as members to band together. I know I may not have much sway with many organizations but I do have it at my club, and by extension some with the WSAA.

I challenge each of you to bring up joining a coalition at you next organizations meeting. Empower you leaders to band together. While I no longer rifle hunt deer or elk I recognise I have WAY more in common with them thank do the Antis in this state.

We have lost a lot of predator control through the loss of hound hunting and trapping... I've never done either, and they have always been much smaller numbers than general hunters... We cannot make this mistake again.
Take the first step with me.  Pressure your current organisation to forge an alliance with each other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[uplandhunter870]

Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?

Time for me to offend people.

Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.

Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.

Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.

Bigmacc you just said it perfectly.

i will put myself out there for the potential lamb-basting that may ensue, I am one of the "professional wildlife biologists" i do not work for the State but my agency shares a lot of the same directives. i got into this field because i grew up hunting and wanted to be a force and voice of good for the sportsman.

i am in the middle of re-writing my office's wildlife and habitat management plan and i can tell you first hand that Bigmacc just about said it perfectly, aside from the money portion, a lot of our budgets have been cut pretty drastically, i dont know about wdfw as i dont work for them. but in this new modern era of wildlife management we have so many more stakeholders, initiatives, directives and interest groups to answer to. the old plan i was working under that has expired listed out 3 games species and 2 ESA species. i am now writing a plan that includes upwards of 100 species and their habitats, not a small order by any means.

flat out the era of managing solely for game is gone, its done and agencies are now looking at a holistic approach of ALL wildlife this is snakes and lizards, amphibians, game species, ESA species, little brown birds to eagles and species that no one really pays attention to like bats and butterflies.

we live in a changing time and we as hunters need to adapt to it. yes there are wolves and more wolves, hate to say it but theyre here to stay and will increase in both numbers and range. wildlife management paradigms are changing and game species are not always the main focus. i will say that the animals are out there, i spend over 200 days afield and see them out there. they are getting better at avoiding predators and that includes us.

now i do not agree with everything wdfw does or all of their management techniques. static management of the herds does not work. however, when you have an office of 2-3 biologists that are expected to manage 10s of thousands of acres theres only so much you can do in a given year, especially with the plethora of management directives and studies to conduct. something is going to get left by the way side.

so far ive seen everyone here talking about "what can we coerce wdfw into doing to benefit deer hunting". ive read over the threads and seen some good ideas and some not so good. but in reality we should be asking "what can we, the hunting population do to help" we have organization like the Mule Deer Foundation and other groups that have a sole mission of improving opportunities for deer hunting. why are we not thinking what we can do to help. we as hunters can offer a lot of help in the terms of man power for habitat improvement projects, my biggest limiting factor at work is not money or time but MAN POWER.

its an unpopular comparison but a very apt one, but have you ever wondered why the washington wolf reintroduction has been such a success? its because there are a ton of everyday members of the public that want it and they volunteer to help out. whether its with citizen science for monitoring or helping with translocation projects or etc. people are willing to donate their time and effort for a cause they believe in.

what we should be asking of ourselves as hunters is "how can we come together as a group and provide our time, knowledge,expertise and energy to help solve a concerning issue that we all care about?"

[wolfbait]

I've asked myself if a boycott would help us or hurt us..wdfw is all about revenue. If they don't get our money maybe they will listen...but then I think if we don't buy licenses the anti's will have won....it might be worth a try , who knows it could work...I know the hard core fishing community has thought about it with the recent season setting/ limits issues.

Stopping hunting is WDFW exact goal, hence the wolf introduction, protection of predators, mass deer hunts, etc..

We need some accountability on the shape of the deer herds etc., not another BS study from WDF&wolves.

WDFW's long term goal is to be funded by the tax payers not hunters.