Randy Newberg on the WDFW commission infiltration

[WAcoyotehunter]

If a guy like Randy Newberg doesn't come out all brimstone an fire, then it's like RMEF being pro-wolf, then when their membership tanked, changed their position.

Randy needs to call it like it is, no high road crap.

I've yet to listen, but will

Only 17 minutes in so far, and Randy is fine calling it like it is. The other two guests are the ones tip-toeing around. Not surprised, given their affiliation…

This might be a shocker for some folks, but it is possible to make a point and have a stronger impact by being considerate and describing a clear position without being an a$$hole (tip toer).  I think BHA did a pretty good job describing what was happening in WA and has been at the front of the line to testify at commission meetings on hunters behalf. 

BHA is still going to be around after these commissioners are gone, they need to maintain working relationships with commissioners and dept staff

[NumaJohn]

Agreed!   

[Onewhohikes]

There's a fine line as to getting the point across when dealing with the commission. They don't have to tip toe when talking to Randy. When they think the commission is biased just tell him that and quit *censored* footing.

[baker5150]

I commend Wa BHA, Chris, and Dan for stepping up and taking this on.   

It's easy to sit on a Forum and complain.
Actually, physically doing something deserves recognition. 

[GASoline71]

To those calling out BHA reps for tip toeing:

While I don’t agree with BHA on many things, they were one of the FIRST groups to call out the commission and create the petition to have a revote on the spring bear season. As far as I have seen, they’ve been nothing but pro spring bear (and fall for that matter) in Washington and have understandably lost members from that position.
They tip toe a bit because it’s a political situation. But I am not a politician and will and have called out the blatant anti hunting commissioners and will continue to do so.

I’m glad to see Newberg bring this to his audience but it would be nice to have had that happen last year. The point remains: we as hunters, fisherman, trappers have got to speak up and remain vigilant in defense of our heritage and love of outdoors.

It was at a BHA event that I first met you, and also saw firsthand what the BHA was doing for WA hunters in regards to the Spring Bear hunt.  The BHA helped motivate me to jump in and get more involved than I already was.  I'd never spoke up at a commission meeting until then.  Now I try as often as I can to get on the list to speak.  Not only at commission meetings, and Spring Bear agendas, but many other things concerning wildlife management in this state. 

The WA State chapter of the BHA has done a lot during this whole commission debacle, and I commend them and they have my full support.  Just as I support other sportsman's groups in this state as well.

Gary

[Special T]

I listened to the interview. I think Dan Wilson of BHA  did a good job of explaining the situation. Not being overly confrontational is beneficial to trying to solve problems. I would also say that the Washington chapter is bucking its national organization so diplomatic discussion is even more important.

I have 2 points of contention or disagreements in the discussion.

1 I believe it was Dan that stated sportsmen are only responsible for 20% of the WDFW budget.  This simply is not the full truth and accepting that number falls into Anti Hunters trap of controlling verbiage. This Quote is from the Washington State Archery Associations Hunting VP on a FB post on this issue. I would also add that ALL Dingle Johnson funds come from fishermen because of the tax structure.

"It may surprise many of you to know that in my meetings with WDFW staff that they have downplayed the role sportsmen play in funding the Department. I heard several percentages around the 28% mark that were attributed to sportsmen's contribution to the Department's budget. This always rubbed me the wrong way, because when you count Pitman Robertson and Dingle Johnson funds that percent is around 49%. When I challenged Department staff they dismissed the discrepancy because those funds cannot be directly attributed to sportsmen. I was in disbelief at those statements. First, that cannot be true for D&J funds, but the huge preponderance of P&R funds come from hunters, and those that don't hunt, only a very small percentage of folks are against hunting.  The 2022 Washington Residence Attitude Towards Wildlife Management  Study states that "Three fourths of residents (75%) approve of legal, regulated hunting in general; 44% strongly approve. In contrast, 10% disapprove."  How many of that 10% do you think buy guns, ammo, or archery gear?  According to the  Archery Trade Association  4.1% of the nation's adults only shoot target archery.  What we can say is that 90% of Washingtonians are supportive or agnostic of hunting. The 10% that disapproves, likely don't contribute much to the P&R fund anyway. So why the push to remove the contribution of sportsmen of the self-imposed taxes P&R and D&J funds?"

2 Engaging many of these commissioners as if they hold the same value in the WDFW mission as we do is a huge tactical mistake. They were appointed with the express purpose of blowing up the system and changing it from the inside. Ive posted this many times before, but the game plan they are following is spelled out on the Wildlife for all Website. https://wildlifeforall.us/why-it-matters/solutions/what-you-can-do/   Engagement or trying to hold them accountable on each infraction of their duty is playing a game of whack a mole and does not solve the underlying problem. Their funding mechanisms of of suing on behalf of the animals and getting reimbursed for it is very different than every sportsmen's organization I can think of. Litigation is a tool in their belt.


I wish some one with legal experience could find a way to turn Anti hunting groups Lawfare into a tool sportsmen could wield.


Overall I think the interview was a good one.

[slavenoid]

They essentially lost their seat at the table on our behalf. Cussing and screaming likely won't get that back.

As far as the roughly 20% figure brought up on the podcast to me it sounded like he was specifically talking hunting and excluding fishing

[hunter399]

Honestly ,I could care less ,how nice anybody is to the commission.
You guys all know the saying.....
Catch more flies with sugar than vinegar.
Well that doesn't apply here.
Your voice is not and will not be heard ,when there is an agenda that there mind is all ready set on.
I wouldn't tip toe ,they are trash,and don't know crap about wildlife management. I'm betting they can't even wipe themselves right.

But don't worry guys ,cause I don't correspond,reply,or care too talk ,email,or even look at the commission.

We should all be out predator hunting right now.
Sometimes if you want something fixed,your gonna have to do it yourself.

[GOcougsHunter]

Great podcast.  The one point that I think has not been brought up is this false idea of “equivalency”  The commission and others trying to be disrupters of the status quo believe that the since the numbers of hunters and fishermen are reducing as a percentage of the population, they (sportsmen) should have less and less say in how the department works.

If Washington State hunters and fishermen are actually contributing less and less dollars to the agency as a proportion of the state population and the agency’s costs, that somehow translates to an ever diminishing voice in directing the department’s role on state wildlife???

Could someone logically make the same argument about the regulations of any other business or activity that has a small portion of the population engaging in those activities?  Could that be said for private airline pilots who constitute a tiny fraction of WA residents who fly?  Should those pilots be censured or disregarded on their input on regulation of municipal airports or air traffic just because they don’t constitute the 98% of the WA population who don’t have a pilot’s license?  I guarantee that the fees a pilot pays per year to maintain their license and their equipment doesn’t even put a dent in what it costs to maintain the aviation section at the WSDOT. 

What about Dentists?  The vast majority of Washington State citizens are not dentists.  The annual fees all of the WA dentists pays for annual licensure do not cover the DOH regulatory agency for DDS.  Does that mean that non-dentists should have the greatest voice in the regulation of dentists?  More than your local DDS or dental associations?  This may sound silly, but it is the same equivalency.

Each departmental agency within the state government has sunk costs which have to be made up from the general fund.  The presence of general fund dollars should never be construed as power to drive what a very small number of non elected commissioners may or may not believe is their perception of general public opinion in how a State agency should be run.  Reducing hunter and fisherman influence at the WDFW because of declining license sales or declining PR funds as a percentage of the WDFW cost to run is a red herring.  WDFW needs to operate within their charter regardless if there are 10 million hunters or only 100 hunters contributing funds to the agency.  We need to stop talking about the revenue streams as to who gets the power to drive policy.  Policy should always be driven by those impacted the most and should get the greatest voice.  Period.

[Ghost Hunter]

   Well said.

[Wizekrakr]

Why would the commission need to or want to wait for "the science" relating to predator control on elk and deer herds when there is current science "facts" that show the immediate need is critical to curb bear, cougar and wolf predation in order to sustain a healthy ungulate population.  The time for the commission to act is now with the current "science". This is just another complete failure of Jay Inslee.  The law suit is justified.  The spring bear hunters have paid for their points to draw tags and the state has denied them of that.  Damages are obvious. Damages are obvious to the rest of us who have been buying tag opportunities for 20 to 30 years and the commission has failed to deliver so that hunters are the priority in their decision making and wildlife management. I know I have tag opportunities with over 20 points (thats 20 freaking years) that I will probably never get drawn for because of Jay Inslee's failure.

[KFhunter]

I hope the lawsuit does something but I'm not even cautiously optimistic

[buckfvr]

This is not another jay insleez failure, its another success advancing his agenda.

[Special T]

This is not another jay insleez failure, its another success advancing his agenda.

 

[hunter_sean08]

I know it’s still relatively new, but is there anymore information on this Washington Fish and Wildlife Conservation Partnership? Would certainly like to donate to such a coalition.

I understand wanting to be civil about this situation but I’m curious as to why there isn’t more information being shared online and via social media regarding this infiltration of preservationists within our Fish and Wildlife Commission. A podcast from prominent figures like Randy Newberg goes a long ways, but I want to see our advocacy groups stepping up to the plate in terms of notifying all who stand for the North American Conservation Model. We need to be better informed and we need to know what is being done to respond to the figurative left hook we’ve taken to the chin from these preservationists. Better yet we all need to know how we can get involved.

We need to unite and stand together. Voicing our concerns and distaste to our constituents in Olympia may feel like beating our heads against the wall, but things will only get worse if we sit there and allow them to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk