wdfw

[mudlugger]

lets hear some reason's yes or no

[robodad]

Not sure I agree with everything they do but think if they had an unlimited budget things could be better !! 

[TNBT]

Could be better, They do need more funding however not unlimited.

[gottatree]

I see how other states I hunt in are ran and look at there quality and seasons. I just wonder why we can not be somewhere close to them.Then I rember King county runs the state.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I think WDFW does a pretty good job managing game, considering close to 7 million people in this little state.  There will always be unhappiness about how quality and opportunity are balanced.  With more hunters and less game to go around, not a big surprise the hunting is worse than in big states with more game and less hunters.

I once figured up that Washington had 15 human residents for every big game animal of all species.  Wyoming had 1 human resident for every 3 big game animals; big game animals are 45 times more abundant in Wyoming on a human per-capita basis - not much surprise which one has better hunting. 

I am not a fan of WDFW in general, the leadership are politically spineless and morally corrupt whores who will climb into any bed for funding.  I do think the game division does a pretty good job.  I don't think Wyoming Gaame and Fish could do a much better job managing wildlife in Washington.   

[Wacenturion]

    "I do think the game division does a pretty good job."

Boy you got that wrong....that's by far the worst Program in WDFW.....or to put it in easier to understand verbage...the're the ones who have had more of a negative impact on you the sportsman.  That program needs a good colonic!   Been backing up for about 20 years now....

[Huntbear]

The WDFW is a political machine, not a wildlife/sportsman run machine.

[Little John]

How do you manage a deer herd when you can buy a tag and hunt the entire state. And rely on the "honesty policy" for your harvest reports. I've never seen a game check station in my life. I've never been checked by a gamie either .

[sturgeon seeker]

  THEY SUCK THAT'S MY FINAL ANSWER

[Thenewguy]

Not sure I agree with everything they do but think if they had an unlimited budget things could be better !! 

You mean like the treasury?

[colockumelk]

I think they manage for $$$$$$.  THey don't manage for money and need to grow a sack sometimes.  I realize there is a lot of political BS they have to deal with that we probably will never know about but they do not manage for quality it's all about revenue for them.  Our state has the potential to have really good hunting.  maybe not as good as Montana or Wyoming etc.  But at least as good as Oregon. 

[KillBilly]

I think WDFW does a pretty good job managing game, considering close to 7 million people in this little state.  There will always be unhappiness about how quality and opportunity are balanced.  With more hunters and less game to go around, not a big surprise the hunting is worse than in big states with more game and less hunters.

I once figured up that Washington had 15 human residents for every big game animal of all species.  Wyoming had 1 human resident for every 3 big game animals; big game animals are 45 times more abundant in Wyoming on a human per-capita basis - not much surprise which one has better hunting. 

I am not a fan of WDFW in general, the leadership are politically spineless and morally corrupt whores who will climb into any bed for funding.  I do think the game division does a pretty good job.  I don't think Wyoming Gaame and Fish could do a much better job managing wildlife in Washington.   

+1  Well said dbl

[hoytem]

for one the ridiculous prices for tags. also i don't understand why westside elk benefit more from a 3 pt min. restriction and eastside elk benefit from spike only restrictions. both are supposedly  in place to keep the herds healthy one however generates more income in the form of special app fees.

[Intruder]

Way too much placating non-hunters.  Big Game management/regs compared to other states seems sub part to me.  Little emphasis on upland bird management. 

I think a lot of the issues are centered with higher levels of management and government agendas.  WA is the smallest state in the west w/ the 2nd biggest population which is very centered in metro Seattle.  No offense to west siders but that's a big part of the issue with the way the dept is run.  The overwhelming portion of the population of the state doesn't give a rats ass and many are non or even anti hunting.   

[whacker1]

I voted maybe.  I think it will be an eternal uphill battle, because of the political leadership in this state.  Democrat House, Democrat Senate, Democrat Governor - WDFW needs to use conservative science and still appeal to a political environment that is exactly the opposite.  With 7 million people in the state as someone mentioned before and the acreage to support far fewer hunters than we actually have, I am not sure I know how to help them improve.  Could they be better?  Yes  How?  I am not sure.  

i am definitely not satisfied, but I think the task would be far easier in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming where you get to control harvest by limiting the number of tags sold to non-residents.  They have such a significantly smaller human population, which allows for higher carrying capacity on the same amount of acres.  And some of these states are far larger in acreage.  Our human population in WA creates to much infrastructure that erodes the carrying capacity of the land.  roads, cities, and other infrastructure all limit the amount of land available for animals.  

In WA - anyone can buy a tag over the counter.  We don't have a non-resident demand to really control like some of these other states do.  

So, again not happy - but I don't have the solution either.