Article about WDFW Budget

[Tbar]

Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.

Careful what you ask for! They are working on exactly that.

[Special T]

I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?

Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.

I like where your head is at... but since the new 3 year package has been adopted for rules  how do you think they they can/Will open the whole process back up?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Southpole]

Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.

Careful what you ask for! They are working on exactly that.

I was being somewhat sarcastic...

[Bob33]

I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?

Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.

Interesting idea. WDFW attempted to increase cougar quotas but Inslee vetoed it, and the ban on hounds was due to an initiative. I don't know if WDFW could undo an initiative on their own. I do believe they could attempt to revise the wolf plan, but would certainly encounter massive resistance from several groups.

[Southpole]

Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.

.



I agree but I think those predator loving groups are getting exactly what they want less hunters every year and the eventual collapse of the North America wildlife management model that worked great for decades. Some people said they wanted to eliminate hunting first and then take guns because people wouldn’t need them! Ha ha sounded crazy at first but watching Washington’s story unfold might not be. At the very least promoting,protecting and introducing predators will end hunting as we have known it. Ineffective predator hunting seasons,small qoutas and outright protection of predators means less deer elk, less hunters, less money and the whole system falls apart. I think it’s exactly what those groups want and they are winning in too many states

Which is what I said in my first post, WDFW got exactly what they wanted, but they’re trying to make it sound like it’s our fault for not buying licenses. They conveniently don’t mention why we’re not buying their crappy product anymore. There’s no mystery why they want all the predators, it is to eliminate hunting (for non natives), period.

[Humptulips]

I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?

Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.

I like where your head is at... but since the new 3 year package has been adopted for rules  how do you think they they can/Will open the whole process back up?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

If they really want they can change anything anytime they want however I admit they will be hesitant to make season changes. They could however commit to things like changes in the wolf plan or increased cougar quotas without changes in their printing. I think that is more likely acceptable to them. Just have to have the talk and see what you can get them to commit to.

[Humptulips]

I think everyone is looking at this wrong. This could be an opportunity.
They want something from us now which is acceptance of a price increase. Now is the time to say OK, What are you going to give me for that?

Would you say I'm OK with an increase if you got some changes you really wanted? Let us say an increase in cougar quotas and a redo on the wolf management plan to allow the eastern third of the State to be managed with public hunting.
Might be a bridge too far but put hound hunting and trapping on the table..
Could be more stuff but tell them we'll support a price increase if we get value for our money.

Interesting idea. WDFW attempted to increase cougar quotas but Inslee vetoed it, and the ban on hounds was due to an initiative. I don't know if WDFW could undo an initiative on their own. I do believe they could attempt to revise the wolf plan, but would certainly encounter massive resistance from several groups.

The fee increases have to go through the Legislature so any changes that required Legislative approval could be tied to fee increases in the same bill. Probably reaching for the stars I'll admit.

[bobcat]

I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.

Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.

None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WSU]

I know some fishing industry groups are gearing up to oppose the fee increases in the legislature.  WDFW happily keeps cutting back on fishing opportunity and screwing up those that aren't getting cut and expects a fee increase. 

It's an election year and we need to make sure our legislators know that we oppose any fee increase without tangible improvement from WDFW.

[Special T]

Bobcat I belive you are correct insofar that they would blame lower numbers on some nebulous reason because it diverts blame. The fact still remains that an increase prevents them from addressing the issues. Access Is very important but a lack large amount of game negates this issue.

2 issues are at stake. Hunter retention, and new hunter recruitment.

Recruitment is a long term solution and retention is a short term.

I will say that the WDFW has done a great thing by supporting the NASP (National Archery in Schools Program) in this state. Some forms of hunting seem to be more palatable to the broad population. Archery, bird & small game don't seem to be as offensive....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Bob33]

I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.

Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.

None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.

We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.

We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.

Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.

I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.

We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.

These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.

[bigtex]

I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.

Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.

None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.

There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.

We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.

We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.

Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.

I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.

We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.

These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.

I agree with both of you. I think there's been significant change even in just the past 10-15 years. I remember having my son get out of school and running him out to Ravensdale to muzzleloader elk hunt. Well a couple years later and those wooded areas are now all homes. Urban sprawl has taken away our hunting lands and also wildlife habitat. I give props to King County for buying some of the last remaining wooded chunks of land in the Ravensdale area to keep it as wooded areas, unfortunately we cant hunt it.

The "recent" housing explosion has effected us in many ways, not only financially as our homes become more expensive but also as our wildlife habitat and hunting areas decrease. The fact that my son who is in his late 20s can remember the "good days" of hopping in the truck and within 45 minutes being able to hunt in King County is gone. Yet I remember the days of my younger days hunting the Kent valley, the Issaquah Plateau, etc. All those areas are industrial or mega-homes now.

[NRA4LIFE]

My buddy and I used to take our shotguns to school and duck out a little early to go grouse and pheasant hunting.  I'm guessing if you did that today as a teen you'd be expelled and probably thrown in jail. 

But I agree here.  Just travel out Maple Valley highway to Enumclaw and look at how much of the woodlands are being torn down for houses.  Unreal.

[idaho guy]

Hey I have a swell idea. Why doesn’t Humane Society of US, Defenders of Wildlife, Conservation NW and any other predator lovin’ group hand over their donations they get from people all over the world to “save” the (fill in the blank) to fill in WDFW financial short falls. Get the people that want all these predators to pay up too since they have so much influence on state managed departments.

.



I agree but I think those predator loving groups are getting exactly what they want less hunters every year and the eventual collapse of the North America wildlife management model that worked great for decades. Some people said they wanted to eliminate hunting first and then take guns because people wouldn’t need them! Ha ha sounded crazy at first but watching Washington’s story unfold might not be. At the very least promoting,protecting and introducing predators will end hunting as we have known it. Ineffective predator hunting seasons,small qoutas and outright protection of predators means less deer elk, less hunters, less money and the whole system falls apart. I think it’s exactly what those groups want and they are winning in too many states

Which is what I said in my first post, WDFW got exactly what they wanted, but they’re trying to make it sound like it’s our fault for not buying licenses. They conveniently don’t mention why we’re not buying their crappy product anymore. There’s no mystery why they want all the predators, it is to eliminate hunting (for non natives), period.

  I know just agreeing with you

[DOUBLELUNG]

I'm not so sure the decline in the number of hunters can be blamed soley on the WDFW. Our state is changing, just like the rest of the country, and becoming more developed and much less rural than it was in the past. For many people it's difficult just finding a place to shoot, let alone a place to hunt. I don't think Washington state is alone in having a declining number of hunters.

Also I see a lot of things the WDFW is doing to help recruit new hunters. There are special youth seasons for upland bird hunting, waterfowl hunting, and deer hunting, along with special permit hunts for all species of big game. And they also have a program that provides access to private property for all hunters, but many of the properties, and often the most desirable dates, can only be reserved by a hunting party with at least one youth hunter.

None of these opportunities existed when I first began hunting 30 some years ago. So I think we need to give the WDFW credit for trying to get more young people introduced to hunting. It's not their fault that due to the increase in the human population, areas that used to be open to hunting are now developed or gated. And kids aren't being introduced to hunting as much as they were in the past, simply because the ability for people to hunt close to home has become much less.

There are a lot of differences between now and when I hunted as a youth.

We hunted pheasants in the Badger Pocket area south of Kittitas. I’ve visited the property several times since and have never seen a pheasant anywhere.

We hunted ducks out of rubber rafters in Port Susan bay (we’re lucky to be alive after some of those experiences.) Access now would be nearly impossible.

Much of the land we freely accessed requires access fees now of several hundred dollars or more. Much of what was huntable then is developed now.

I grew up in Seattle and remember riding with my father on Friday evenings after school to Eastern Washington to hunt elk. I suspect the commute time now would be at least a couple hours longer, not to mention frustration with traffic.

We also had fewer distractions then. The electronics of today absorb far too much attention.

These trends are national. Add in the media hatred for anything gun related, and it will be more and more challenging to continue to support hunting.

I agree with both of you. I think there's been significant change even in just the past 10-15 years. I remember having my son get out of school and running him out to Ravensdale to muzzleloader elk hunt. Well a couple years later and those wooded areas are now all homes. Urban sprawl has taken away our hunting lands and also wildlife habitat. I give props to King County for buying some of the last remaining wooded chunks of land in the Ravensdale area to keep it as wooded areas, unfortunately we cant hunt it.

The "recent" housing explosion has effected us in many ways, not only financially as our homes become more expensive but also as our wildlife habitat and hunting areas decrease. The fact that my son who is in his late 20s can remember the "good days" of hopping in the truck and within 45 minutes being able to hunt in King County is gone. Yet I remember the days of my younger days hunting the Kent valley, the Issaquah Plateau, etc. All those areas are industrial or mega-homes now.

Habitat loss, declining opportunities and barriers to recruiting new hunters and anglers are all part of the problem.  However, I think the primary answer is here (quote from the article):

"At the Legislature’s directive, the agency is undertaking a deep-dive into its operations. It reassessed its organizational structure and is crafting a long-term funding strategy."

I was working for the Wyoming Game and Fish Dept in 1994 when they were faced with the same expanding mission/declining revenues crisis.  They responded by dividing the agency's current activities into programs (79 I believe), excluded those few that had a dedicated funding source, and prioritized from 1 through X the remaining programs into basically 3 areas: legislatively required, positive revenue, and negative revenue.  The programs that weren't legally required AND didn't have a dedicated funding source were put on the chopping block: in some cases the public came through and demanded general funding to keep the programs from being cut (e.g., Access YES, the private land/public access program), and others did not get enough support and were cut.  It was sad that people were laid off, and some constituents had cherished programs cut (e.g., BOW Becoming an Outdoors Woman, Hunting and Fishing Heritage Expo, Whiskey Mountain youth and teachers' conservation camps), but the Department remained solvent and mission critical programs were kept and adequately staffed and funded.  I hope WDFW can effectively do the same.  In some cases, after programs were cut, the affected constituents stepped up and lobbied legislators to get general fund or NGO money to keep them going after a hiatus. 

In my own opinion, in some cases WDFW's Olympia bureaucracy is overstaffed for the convenience and benefit of administrators, with little real benefit to the resource or public.  More resources need to be allocated to field operations at the Detachment, District and Regional levels, offset by cuts at headquarters.  Unfortunately, some administrations (Koenings in particular comes to mind) took the opposite approach to budget shortfalls and strategically cut field operations where the public would be most affected, with the expectation this would create grassroots demand for more funding for the Department.  Others (I'll give props to Anderson for this approach) looked for how to make cuts with the least impact on the public. 

I am glad outside eyes are involved in evaluating the Department's spending and priorities.