Hunters need to make a Statement

[bearpaw]

I think people go to other states, where they can hunt more than one season, because there is simply more game to go around.  Washington State has 116 people per square mile, and her human population has been doubling every 20 years since the late 1800s.  Idaho has 22.3 people per square mile.  Even Oregon has only 44.1 people per square mile.  And then, of course, Montana and Wyoming- 7.5 and 5.9 people per square mile. 

I don't disagree that there is currently a concerted effort by the animal rights types to eliminate as many kinds of hunting in Washington State as they can get away with.  But when it comes to opportunity, or lack thereof, I think it is due in part to just too high a population density of people.  I think the state had to go to a "choose your weapon" system to manage pressure on the game and maintain some kind of quality to the hunt.

Why is there such an effort in the WDFW literature to paint the picture that hunter participation is down?  It seems opposite to what I've experienced.

If you read KFhunter's posts he explains why it seems hunter participation is up, that's due to access, even though hunters are fewer we are all being squeezed into fewer and fewer areas to hunt due to restricted access in many areas that used to be accessible for hunters.

[bearpaw]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

[northwesthunter84]

After hunting multiple states over the years I am becoming more and more convinced that the issues we see with herd size is three prong, too many efficient predators on the land scape, carrying capacity of the land is low (look at deer densities on private land vs public) and WDFW only gets about 1/2 of the story (i.e. poaching is way out of hand and not all info is shared across user groups).  I think our statement should be to dramatically boost carrying capacity and to take out as many predators as we can.  Both of these will take significant effort.  Also the state needs to stop wildlife deconfliction efforts, if Joe doesn't want deer eating his crops then he needs landowner tags issued to him (not to sell) and he should hunt them or allow access to hunt them.  Timber companies and farmers have insurance for crop loss, WDFW shouldn't be subsidizing them or giving them tags to sell.   

The third issue will be an outlier until the prosecutors and judges start making big game offences hurt.  None of this hunting privilege revocation trash, they never cared to begin with, lets push for mandatory fines and jail time. 

The shared info is a quagmire, some groups go out of their way to share information and make things better while others go it on their own.  My hope is someday everyone will come to the table to share information.

[Humptulips]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

I'm going to reply to my own post just so it doesn't get lost at the bottom of the last page. I will add I see less hunters every year just crammed into a smaller and smaller area. It isn't just private access though. large areas are just not worth hunting. Everybody heads to the same spot. I have a near 60 year perspective and there were way more hunters years ago but we were more spread out.

[Humptulips]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

It became apparent to me in the thread advocating for Blake as a F&W Commissioner that politically the average hunter doesn't know who their friends are when they step into the voting booth. Every Sportsmen should be getting mailings that inform them and ask for help. Sportsmen don't have to do it all for a candidate but we need to get behind our friends. I'm thinking kind of a NRA style outreach effort. That will take dollars and probably the right leadership.

[baldopepper]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit  the non committed or make our argument with some of the committed
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.

[bearpaw]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit  the non committed or make our argument with some of the committed
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.

You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?

[baldopepper]

While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?

[KFhunter]

Can we bonk em like baby seals?   

 


I got no ideas either! 

[pianoman9701]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit  the non committed or make our argument with some of the committed
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.

You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?

The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster. Everyone will have to suffer before anyone not already awake, will be forced to awaken. Inslee has been bought and paid for by animal rights groups and will continue to stack the Commission with anti-hunters and radical leftists. Our commission will never again be focused on their mission "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities." Those addicted to government handouts will continue to vote the status quo. They support Inslee, Sawant, Ferguson, Durkin, because every time these politicians open their mouths, they talk about free stuff, fewer laws, lower penalties, free drugs, and get out of jail free cards. They have nothing to gain by voting any other way unless the freebies dry up. Those guilty few elite liberals who are the "haves" will continue to vote for them because either they believe that this time, their votes will make a real difference for the "have-nots", or that they, having already amassed their fortunes, will be the "chosen" at the top of the new Utopia. They're blinded by the incessant lies and finger pointing by their liberal candidates at opponents...and the full, unwavering support of their "free press" to hide their candidates' shortcomings and inflate or create those of their opponents...or accepting of it. The end justifies the means.

[KFhunter]

While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?

No we're not in this together, if you're voting dem then you're the enemy of hunting, and other issues like 2A

Them's the facts.

[KFhunter]

Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.

The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.

Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.

  I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.

I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit  the non committed or make our argument with some of the committed
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.

You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?

The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster. Everyone will have to suffer before anyone not already awake, will be forced to awaken. Inslee has been bought and paid for by animal rights groups and will continue to stack the Commission with anti-hunters and radical leftists. Our commission will never again be focused on their mission "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities." Those addicted to government handouts will continue to vote the status quo. They support Inslee, Sawant, Ferguson, Durkin, because every time these politicians open their mouths, they talk about free stuff, fewer laws, lower penalties, free drugs, and get out of jail free cards. They have nothing to gain by voting any other way unless the freebies dry up. Those guilty few elite liberals who are the "haves" will continue to vote for them because either they believe that this time, their votes will make a real difference for the "have-nots", or that they, having already amassed their fortunes, will be the "chosen" at the top of the new Utopia. They're blinded by the incessant lies and finger pointing by their liberal candidates at opponents...and the full, unwavering support of their "free press" to hide their candidates' shortcomings and inflate or create those of their opponents...or accepting of it. The end justifies the means.

The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster.

Yup, been saying it for a long time.  Pain, and lot's of it.

[idahohuntr]

I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state.  And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year. 

All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO.  I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population.  Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner.  Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.

[KFhunter]

I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state.  And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year. 

All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO.  I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population.  Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner.  Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.

Moderate dems are unicorns, if you vote for one you're the enemy of hunting...period.

Why would Inslee give up power to select the commission members?  That baffles me. 

[baldopepper]

While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?

No we're not in this together, if you're voting dem then you're the enemy of hunting, and other issues like 2A

Them's the facts.

kf- hate to say it, but that thinking is the very problem that's going to cost us our rights. Hunters continue to be their own worst enemies.