Free: Contests & Raffles.
Just finished the survey. It left me shaking my head.
Here’s my 2 cents: no more money from recreational hunters and fishers without more priority. If they want more money, deliver more product. We can catch less and have less success hunting for the same price. If they want more, their main constituents ought to get more. I’ll be delivering that message to my reps and senator.
This is atypical WDFW survey, multiple answers grouped so that no matter how you answer you are supporting something that they want to push, and only one with a place to comment. When the results come out they will say that the majority of responses agree with their plans. Last year the WDFW director looked so bad when he tried to tell the natural resources committee that the public supported fee increases because the published responses were very much against a fee increase.
That's a tough question. They don't have authority to delist wolves. They could change their management of other predators for sure. They also can only do so much regarding private property. Places people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
Places people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
QuotePlaces people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent complaining about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
QuotePlaces people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent bitching about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
They certainly have their hands tied but I would argue they don’t seem to struggle against those restraints much. I would like to see a clear attitude they are there to fight for the animals and hunters. When they at least turn in that direction I would gladly pay more. The circus at Shillapoo is something I see where they have latitude and come down against the hands that feed them, over and over.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Side note but thought it was interesting. I was in Montana this weekend scouting for elk and hear an ad on the radio that Montana fish and wildlife is putting on a weekend shindig for ladies who are either looking to get into outdoor activities or for them to improve their knowledge. They were going to have workshops, activities and all that. My first thought was "well that's pretty darn cool. Washington would never do something like that"
This is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?
Quote from: vandeman17 on July 24, 2018, 02:38:38 PMSide note but thought it was interesting. I was in Montana this weekend scouting for elk and hear an ad on the radio that Montana fish and wildlife is putting on a weekend shindig for ladies who are either looking to get into outdoor activities or for them to improve their knowledge. They were going to have workshops, activities and all that. My first thought was "well that's pretty darn cool. Washington would never do something like that"Actually WA has had a similar event for many years.Here's this year's press release: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jun1918a/
Quote from: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:32:09 PMThis is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.
Quote from: bigtex on July 24, 2018, 03:59:04 PMQuote from: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:32:09 PMThis is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.Didn't say it was easy, but it doesn't appear that they have done any work to try. Perhaps it's time to give it a try since the feds at least appear to be interest in trying new things.... we are talking about trying to help endangered and ESA listed species.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk