What IF?

[hunter399]

What would many of you think if we could purpose a rule change. That all permit money has to be relocated to that species.
Example would be moose and all the OIL species.
That permit money would go directly back to moose ,bighorn or whatever the permit money was put in for.

Deer
Elk
Spring bear if we had a permit season.
All of it.

This is the type of reform and accountability I would like to see at WDFW.
Also when permit hunts and seasons are closed it would take away funds from that species.
It would also ensure our permit money is not spent on things like wolf management,or conservation over consumption crap. Making sure hunter dollars go back to species we hunt.
Honestly that money should be relocated to that species.

We need to think outside the box,on ways we can reform WDFW in a way that they work for us,and put funds back into species that matter the most to hunters.
Also if Washington was to go to a permit only hunting,it would also ensure that money goes back to that species.

I might of purposed this before on HW .
Can't remember sorry if I have.
But we got to start thinking of different reform for hunters ,instead of anti-hunters reforming WDFW against hunters.

Anybody eles with reform ideas that can be purposed as a rule change ,I would love to hear some brain storming.

[Boss .300 winmag]

I like your idea, but bears don’t need that kind of help.😉

[hunter399]

I like your idea, but bears don’t need that kind of help.😉

When I say management ,like bears that money would be used most likely for population counts. Stuff like that .
Not to feed them or anything.

Plus as it sits we don't have any permit season for predators.
Including bears give more incentives to have more permit seasons on predators.
Kinda insures that WDFW pays for conflicts and removals out of general funds and not permit money.

[hunter399]

I also like the idea of buying permits that directly help that species.
They might even sell more that way.

These anti-hunters have all kinds of ideas to reform WDFW.
None of them are good for hunters.
Even this idea might go through with our conservative Commission.
We have to think of ways to slow down funds or money,when they decided to end hunting,while ensuring our money is going to the right species in the mean time.

[follow maggie]

I think it’s a good idea. My question is if WDFW has the math competency to do the accounting?

[KFhunter]

I still like predator incentive points to apply for special draws

[buckfvr]

I think it’s a good idea. My question is if WDFW has the math competency to do the accounting?

To me its more about trust and accountability, and both of those attributes are sorely lacking at WDFW.  To "allocate" funds by specie would mean a surplus of funds for certain specie that wdfw would be dreaming up ways to "re"-allocate those funds elsewhere, (see trust and accountability).

I would love to see new laws that water down the measure of power the commission has.  They can make their recommendations, but wdfw doesnt have to accept it as its presented.  Emotional vs. scientific, wdfw should hold that trump card and exercise it often.

[hunter399]

Great comments so far.
Did think about some species getting more funds than needed.
At the end of the day ,From enforcement,to research and science ,I don't really care how they spend the money as long as it goes directly back to that species.
More biologists
More research directly aimed at ungulate .
More enforcement.
Whatever as long as it goes back to that species.

Moose can be an example.
They don't do much,but make a ton of 💰.
That should go back to moose.

The whole north American conservation model is based on this.
Take the money you make and put it back into that resource.
They still have general funds,Pittman funds,and other funding.

Our Wildlife would start to benefit from something like this.
In return our state might see an uptick of hunters,instead of reduced hunter perception as it sits now.

Us as hunters need reform of WDFW back to a conservation model that might benifit Wildlife.
We as hunters need to get organized,United,and come up with good reform ideas that benifit hunters and Wildlife alike.
Ideas that this new Commission might be able to change.

[Dan-o]

I guess I'll be the contrarian.

I wouldn't want this proposal implemented.

I don't think it would be good for game management.

The biggest thing it would do would be to remove flexibility from WDFW.
Personally, I still trust them more than I trust untrained folks.

[Platensek-po]

I guess I'll be the contrarian.

I wouldn't want this proposal implemented.

I don't think it would be good for game management.

The biggest thing it would do would be to remove flexibility from WDFW.
Personally, I still trust them more than I trust untrained folks.

I agree. Wildlife conservation and management is much more than just the species we hunt.

[buckfvr]

I dont think much at all of the idea either, but what do you have in the end if your agency has a history of neglect, bad decisions, caving to political agendas, and being contrary to hunters and going so far as to seem/actually be anti-hunt.

We are in a bind and trusting them is just not an option for many of us.

[hunter399]

I guess I'll be the contrarian.

I wouldn't want this proposal implemented.

I don't think it would be good for game management.

The biggest thing it would do would be to remove flexibility from WDFW.
Personally, I still trust them more than I trust untrained folks.

I agree. Wildlife conservation and management is much more than just the species we hunt.

I'm just gonna throw out something to think on.
Hunter participation way down.
Most ungulate population way down
Permit money is only percentage of overall budget.
Just maybe too flexibly ,may be the problem.

I'm not gonna purpose it.
I'm thinking we will have to go down the rabbit hole little farther.
The rabbit hole. .... Conservation over consumption.
The rabbit hole... Co-exist over hunting.
Maybe some day hunters will come together,but not now.
Any other ideas on reform of WDFW.
Or are you ok with spring bear closed and whatever comes next.
The people you trust are the same people that go to convention about ideas on how to end hunting.
Here we sit with a line in the sand ,drawn clearly that the end of hunting is in our future.
But we are ok with that,and I trust them.

I'll shut up now.

But any other ideas on reform.
Never mind there must be none,everybody must be satisfied with the end of hunting,starting with spring bear.

Moderates feel free to nuke this topic if you wish.
Sorry I even thrown an idea out there.

[Dan-o]

I guess I'll be the contrarian.

I wouldn't want this proposal implemented.

I don't think it would be good for game management.

The biggest thing it would do would be to remove flexibility from WDFW.
Personally, I still trust them more than I trust untrained folks.

I agree. Wildlife conservation and management is much more than just the species we hunt.

I'm just gonna throw out something to think on.
Hunter participation way down.
Most ungulate population way down
Permit money is only percentage of overall budget.
Just maybe too flexibly ,may be the problem.

I'm not gonna purpose it.
I'm thinking we will have to go down the rabbit hole little farther.
The rabbit hole. .... Conservation over consumption.
The rabbit hole... Co-exist over hunting.
Maybe some day hunters will come together,but not now.
Any other ideas on reform of WDFW.
Or are you ok with spring bear closed and whatever comes next.
The people you trust are the same people that go to convention about ideas on how to end hunting.
Here we sit with a line in the sand ,drawn clearly that the end of hunting is in our future.
But we are ok with that,and I trust them.

I'll shut up now.

But any other ideas on reform.
Never mind there must be none,everybody must be satisfied with the end of hunting,starting with spring bear.

Moderates feel free to nuke this topic if you wish.
Sorry I even thrown an idea out there.

There was no harm in throwing out your idea.

Rarely will you get everyone to agree with you, but if you quit that easily you'll never drive change.

[Scruffy]

I applaud Hunter399 for thinking outside of the box to support the sport we all love.  I have to agree with the others though I don't think that is the right approach.  The amount of money raised through permit fees I am sure is only a drop for the amount it would take to fund anything towards those animals.

I don't have any specific ideas except we in the hunting community should be coming together instead of arguing amongst ourselves.  If we could all get on the same page we could have more of us getting involved with the WDFW with suggestions and urging to push things in our favor.  Right now the Anti's are very well on the same page, bring lots of money, have loud voices, and are in the ear of the WDFW.  We only get on a forum and argue about how we are getting screwed and blame one group or the other.  We are not talking facts, and making real cases with valid ideas on how to fix the issues.  just my  I don't have all the answers and it's hard to get anyone to agree on anything but that is where it needs to start I think.  United We Stand, Divided We Fall

[Russ McDonald]

I believe that in order to make changes like this it has to go through yhe state congress.  I might be wrong.  I know that your talking permits but here is an example.  Turkey tags.  Back in the day they were free with a small game licnse correct?  Well when they decided to put a price on it there was an agreement between hunters, NWTF local and the state that a 1/3 of the money goes to habitat, a 1/3 goes to outreach and a 1/3 to general funds.  I don't know if all other tags or permits might be structured that way?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk