Westside Pheasant hunting on the chopping block

[WSU]

If the pheasant folks were laid off it would be horrible as it would lead to more weekday crowding on the local steelhead rivers.

Good thing there are no local steelhead rivers worth going to. Wdfw has made sure that isn’t an issue for us.

[AspenBud]

Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.

Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
 should not be in the business of making a profit!

They've never made a profit on anything or else they wouldn't need to dip into the general fund. There comes a point that the numbers don't pencil out for specific programs, either through diminished use or spiraling costs, or both. If a limited number are benefiting from the program while other programs that serve more users suffer, you have to make tough decisions. This may be one.

Well they could charge what private hunting preserves do for a half day hunt. That alone costs more than a season pheasant tag here. The problem is people don’t want to pay true cost and accuse public agencies of screwing them. So instead if we want planted birds we will get to pay a small fortune to privately run operations. But that’s okay, as long as it’s not government people will happily spread them.  🙄

[AspenBud]

Seriously, it used to be you could throw a rock and hit a Grouse or band tail in western WA and if you got bored you could go and hit the release sites. If they take away planted pheasants you can basically hunt ducks in western WA now.

If WDFW wants to start losing more hunters this will be a great start. Not everyone wants to travel hours east to hunt and any number of pheasant tag buyers buy a small game license as the secondary purchase. If you live east of the mountains or have time and money your hands maybe this state is sort of an upland paradise. But west of the mountains...this place sucks.

Pheasant release has been around for decades here. If they kill that they will end things for a lot of western WA bird hunters. It has always been the one consolation prize.

[Iveexcaped3]

West siders don’t get what they want at their door step.... why does this sound familiar? You don’t see people crying on the east side of not having eastern turkeys. If we want to hunt them we go to the west side and find them. Pheasants (like all animals) need specific things to reproduce and survive. The west side doesn’t provide any of that. We barely have it on the east side because of farming harvest cycles. Be grateful for the fact that you can even hunt pheasant in the state, they can just axe the whole thing let the rest of the birds die or get shot and they can use the money from licenses to go to animals that can survive here. Just my opinion

[Bill W]

The state should pony up for the birders and programs the hunting licenses don't support.   If it was me I'd spread the money around on the programs that are supported by licenses or generate income beyond the support funds and get the state to fund the rest.

[bobcat]

Iveexcaped3-

That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.

[AspenBud]

Iveexcaped3-

That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.

On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.

[Iveexcaped3]

Iveexcaped3-

That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.

On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.

TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.

[bobcat]

The way I see it is the state needed to work on protecting habitat and acquiring more prime habitat in Western Washington that would support pheasants, if they wanted pheasants to actually be something that could provide a good hunting experience for people. It's too late now. It needed to be done back in the 70's when land was still cheap and undeveloped. The pheasant release sites they have now are a joke.

[Pegasus]

TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.

Baloney. TV dinners are great. The most delish TV dinner that my wife and I have found are the large size Stouffer's Salisbury Steak with  Macaroni & Cheese. We would eat those every night but we know that is not healthy. Instead we alternate our nightly dinner between the Salisbury Steak and Jack Daniels.

Not sure if you have been around the block but the recruitment of youth is a last ditch attempt to rectify all of the mistakes the WDFW has made in destroying the future of the hunting industry in Washington. They are choosing to pick on the Westside Pheasant Hunting Program so that the hunters will contact their legislators to demand that the program not be cut and they will get the additional monies demanded to operate the WDFW. There is a pretty good population of hunters in Western Wasington.  If you haven't figured that out ...well...   We see this game played every time. Close the parks, get the people angry. Remember?  Angry people will justify the increases in costs of operating the WDFW. No one asks why they can't manage the money that they already get successfully do they? Maybe they need some businessmen in charge?

[Pegasus]

The way I see it is the state needed to work on protecting habitat and acquiring more prime habitat in Western Washington that would support pheasants, if they wanted pheasants to actually be something that could provide a good hunting experience for people. It's too late now. It needed to be done back in the 70's when land was still cheap and undeveloped. The pheasant release sites they have now are a joke.

Pheasants rarely survive in Western Washington. They might make it a season or two but it is a rare hatch that survives. I know, I used to release them in the Westside. Hens and roosters. They just don't survive the hatch, hence the release sites. The release sites suck because they are too small. I have gone to them a few times. They are dangerous and you can almost guarantee that either you or your dog will get peppered with shot. They can certainly afford to buy or lease larger sites but they don't. I don't think it is the money although they will claim it is. I think there is some relationship between the owners, the leases that exist and the WDFW. Have no proof of that but it makes sense. They have used the same sites for eons. Sites are OK to use after World War III has ended to train a dog and occasionally you find a bird that survived the war.

[singleshot12]

Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.

Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
 should not be in the business of making a profit!

They've never made a profit on anything or else they wouldn't need to dip into the general fund. There comes a point that the numbers don't pencil out for specific programs, either through diminished use or spiraling costs, or both. If a limited number are benefiting from the program while other programs that serve more users suffer, you have to make tough decisions. This may be one.

Correct! never made a profit, but it was set up to be self-sustaining once the hatching and net pens were built. They got the feed cheap so that was not an issue.

The West Wash. pheasant program was set up to fail from the get go reaching it's 50 year expiration date. By establishing sites on or near waterfowl areas which created conflict, closing down release sites due to salmon restoration,then crowding pheasant hunters on remaining sites that were too close to neighboring properties resulting in way too many complaints by the land owners - (Which is probably the main reason why the program is on the chopping block.?)

[AspenBud]

Iveexcaped3-

That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.

On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.

TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.

Haul out a map and draw a circle around any city representing a 2 hour drive. If there are not huntable populations of any given species within that circle people don't go hunt them in any significant numbers. Or if they do they make one trip for a long weekend or a week and that's it. The money and time commitment to make it more regular outside that drive is often too much for people who work, especially those who have kids.

Some might call that laziness but most call it a matter of practicality. Hunter numbers are going off a cliff all over the country. If we let opportunities slip away that trend will simply get worse.

Bird hunting is under some assault this year. Down in Oregon they have legislation being considered that could impact field trials and hunt tests and there was one other piece of legislation that took it to an extra level targeting pen raised game birds (that one failed for now). Oregon is not unique, several states have seen similar legislation rolled out this year. Putting pheasant release on the chopping block here is yet another move to target bird hunting. If they remove that they can then target pen raised game birds for anything from private game reserves to trials and hunt tests and even dog training. They eliminate a conflict of interest if pheasant release goes away.

WDFW was pushing articles on how to bird hunt without a dog last year. Guess what could be next?

[Bullkllr]

I'm not sure the "don't plant them because they don't survive" argument is valid unless you also apply it to fish. No one (except maybe WFC) wants to apply it to fish because it would end most fishing for salmonids across the entire state.

You could also argue that many hatchery based fisheries are ridiculously expensive on a "per fish caught/returned basis". Direct user license fees don't come close to covering costs, thus requiring other budget sources.

Westside pheasant hunters have been "paying more" since what...the 80's... when the fee went up to near 100$. I think most would be willing to put more into the pot if it were proposed. There is more than $$ driving this.

I'm more than a little surprised and concerned so many here are not only not supporting, but actually speaking against this program.
 
It seems like more of the "it can go away since I don't do it" attitude. If you don't know where that attitude gets us all in the long run, you have not been paying attention.

Yes, it's low-hanging fruit; but what's next???

[bobcat]

They're not a native bird. Maybe encourage people to hunt ruffed grouse, blue grouse, band tail pigeons, and waterfowl.

I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.