Anderson new WDFW director

[bearpaw]

I am still hoping that our new director will be friendly to hunters.

[Dave Workman]

The point is - I think that dividing the user groups (whether you want to take that into a conspiracy level or not) does play a role in limiting the number of hunter traveling out in the woods at a given time. I think that is what I have spoken to. More importantly - I do not feel as if we should have all the entire population of elk hunters looking for elk for 3-4 months straight. That's just one example.

Ray:

The point Wacenturion and I have been trying to make is that they *won't* all be out there 3-4 months a year.  Given the history of hunters, it is likely...and that's iffy...that maybe 10-12% of the guys who hunt modern rifle will cross over and get a supplemental primitive weapons permit.  The rest will retire to the easy chair in late November, early December to watch NFL and college football.

But this would provide the additional opportunity to those who DO wish to hunt the early and late primitive weapons seasons if they don't notch a tag during the general hunting season.  This may be a shock to some people, but not every male who owns guns is also a football fan.  I rather dislike football, frankly and would much rather be sharing a campfire.

Your point that resource allocation "plays a role in limiting the number of hunters" is spot on to a degree I don't think you realize.  It has REDUCED the number of hunters statewide over the past few decades.  Figures on license sales from the states, posted on line by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, tell that tale.

In 1975, there were more than 346,000 hunters in this state. That number had dropped to 259,176 in 1985. In 2006, according to the data, this state fielded 187,000 hunters.   

[Curly]

Dave, what do you think the reason is for fewer numbers of hunters?  I think it mostly has to do with the limitted amount of areas we have avialable to hunt.  A lot of places are leased up now, or just simply closed to access. 

With the limitted amount of area to hunt, there is overcrowding.  It ruins the experience when too many hunters are concentrated into a few areas.  Can you imagine if there were 346,000 hunters out there today.

[Dave Workman]

Dave, what do you think the reason is for fewer numbers of hunters?  I think it mostly has to do with the limitted amount of areas we have avialable to hunt.  A lot of places are leased up now, or just simply closed to access. 

With the limitted amount of area to hunt, there is overcrowding.  It ruins the experience when too many hunters are concentrated into a few areas.  Can you imagine if there were 346,000 hunters out there today.

What "limited amount of area" are you talking about?  In Washington?  Does anybody know how many thousands of square miles we have that is public land?  We have, what, seven national forests? That many wilderness areas (limited access for sure, but it's still public land), WDFW lands including all that land on the Colockum, out in the basin, in western Washington, ad infinitum.

There is a massive NWR over south of the Potholes.

The fact is, we have TONS of public land that could be utilized for great GAME habitat.  It just isn't.  And that's the problem.

Ask Wacenturion about the wild turkey program, probably the last genuine game enhancement program this state entertained. it was wildly successful, with turkeys all over the place.

Why don't we still do that with pheasants in the basin?  When I was a kid, we had ringneck hunting out there that rivaled the Dakotas, and even Kansas and Nebraska.

We have all of this habitat and yet we can't seem to grow 50,000 more deer or 10,000 more elk. Why not?

Actually, we can but we seem to have done it in the wrong places lately.  Out in the Snoqualmie Valley we seem to be overrun with elk, but they are in places where people can't really hunt them instead of up the Middle Fork and South Fork and up the North Fork where they COULD be hunted. All it would take is a little archery and ML pressure down on the valley floor to push those animals back into the wilds.

Mt. St. Helens is another example. We have had problems of elk starvation down there because of limited access to hunt that herd.  WTF?  Those animals benefit nobody by starving.  The greenies that pander crap about "Oh, the coyotes and magpies and all the other predators and scavengers have to eat, too" make me sick. They don't contribute a dime to GAME management in this state and yet they get a pretty big voice in how it is managed. 

Want to benefit elk? Plant wild wheat and other really edible stuff out in the wilds, especially after a forest fire. Let it root and help hold the soil, and the wildlife will benefit.

We could turn loose pheasant hens on the basin in the spring right before mating season. Get some roosters out there, let them bring off clutches in the wild.  The game managers will balk at this and argue that coyotes will get them all.  If that's a concern, put a bounty back on coyotes and kill the hell out of them, or make them a predator for which no license is required and there is no bag limit.  Encourage hunters to shoot every one of them we see. Cut down predators, cut down predation.  Revive the GAME populations, and other non-game populations will benefit as well.

There are all kinds of things we can do to enhance GAME populations on public land.  We're just not doing it.

Maybe we need a lot of retirements in Olympia.

[Wacenturion]

Curly........from WDFW's own web site.................

"Since 1939, state leaders have sought to preserve habitat for fish and wildlife by acquiring key areas for public ownership. Today, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns or manages nearly a million acres of land divided into 32 designated Wildlife Areas across the state. More than 150 Water Access Sites owned or maintained by WDFW provide boating access to lakes, rivers and marine areas in or near state Wildlife Areas."

Nearly a million acres in just WDFW owned or controlled wildlife areas, on top of everything Dave mentioned above.  We have no lack of available lands to hunt on in this state.  WDFW's Upland Wildlife Restoration Program used to also have almost 3 1/2 million acres of private ground signed under Feel Free To Hunt, Hunt By Written Permission, or Regulated hunting statewide during the 90's with 21 staff working in the program statewide.  WDFW has since screwed up that program and now staff levels are down to six I believe.  Even when they have one of the nations best programs WDFW would rather not work that hard on anything.  When the powers to be got control, they took down the program.  A number of folks at WDFW were threatened by all that program accomplished.  Made those meeting going, we have no money to do anything crowd nervous. 

By the way, that program gave you the wild turkey program we have today.  Ironically it also ended when those idiots got control.......turkey releases ceased to happen.  Agree Dave.....but not retirements (takes too long)...........Anderson needs to demote some of those people and replace them.  Doubt you will see that though.   

[Dave Workman]

Okay.
What we need are a lot of demotions or outright dismissals. A thorough house cleaning.

There needs to be a performance audit (independent). 

No more "game managers" who tell me that, ideally, people would think they had a great hunt if they got to see some elk going over a ridge. What kind of nonsense is that?

A great hunt is taking one of those elk home to dinner.

Yes, they ended the turkey program, and in spite of that, turkeys continue to thrive.

I'm seeing a lot more grouse this year.  They are allowed to sort of "do their own thing."

Does it strike anybody as more than "curious" that game species the WDFW doesn't seem to manage get along just fine on their own?   

[colockumelk]

Here's what I think. 

We have a ton of good public land that isn't used.  Just like Dave said.  It pisses me off.  We have some awsome habitat that doesn't get used.  The reason that we only have 58,000 elk instead of 78,000 elk is because the WDFW wont let them expand.  They say that the Yakima are can only sustain 12,000 elk.  I call BS.  Right now there's a ton of green grass that is hasn't been touched.  There's plenty of feed and habitat.  Also anywhere where elk are expanding they put liberal any elk seasons on them and wipe them out.  GMU 388 near Goldendale is an example.  Let the elk and deer expand.  Unfortunately the WDFW pander to the farmers.

In Kittitas County for example they use the Master Hunter program as a band aid to shoot 2 cow elk per hunter a year to keep them out of the hay fields.  Instead of putting up an elk fence just like every where else.  Yeah there's no elk fence and the farmers get paid thousands  of dollars every year by the WDFW for damages.  At the same time during the winter cattle feed in the hay fields.  Explain how elk damage the hay fields but cattle don't. 

As for pheasant why is it that they plant a ton of pheasant but they list exactly where and when they release them.  Also why do the release them the day before the season starts.  Then they wonder why non of them survive.  How about the plant them in the spring.

As for predators many states do not require a license to shoot coyotes.  We all know why they require one in this state.  TO MAKE MONEY.  Also why do they protect the cougars so much.  Only one GMU is open in Kittitas county and one GMU is open for them in Yakima County.  I call BS. 

I think they need to either increase the herds so we have more opportunity or make it permit so we have better opportunity.  Spike or Antlerless for elk isn't quality hunting.  Also they need to manage for better buck to doe ratios/bull to cow ratios.  Just because you have a ton of animals doesnt mean its a good  thing.  For example in the Colockum the bull to cow ratio is 5:100.  When it should be at least 10:100.  So why do they not allow archers to harvest cows and why do they not give out any cow permits to the rifle or ML guys? 

To make a long rant short.  All our WDFW cares about is $$$$$$$.  They don't care about us they don't care about the wildlife.  They know that as long as they have OTC tags, no matter how crappy the hunting becomes we will still buy licenses and they will still get paid. 

[colockumelk]

I did a report for biology on what it would look like (hypothetically speaking) if the Yakima and Kittitas GMU's went to permit only for elk.  I checked with the local game bios and they were withing + or - 5%.  It is also noted that this is just the starting point.  THe permit numbers would most likely go up.  On average there would be 3.42 times more branch bull permits given out.  This means you would get drawn 3.42 times more for branch bulls than you normally do.  Anyways it's an interesting read even if you dont' agree.  It's just food for thought. 

http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80

Here's another thing I wrote that is more specific to the Colockum.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80

[Jerbear]

I have seen this department go down the tube for some time.  A few years ago, Field and Stream magazine called it the most political game department in the United States.  I remember in the 1950's and 60's there was a mass exodus from Seattle to the Yakima Valley for pheasants and quail.  You could not find a motel unless you booked ahead.  During deer and elk season, Bethel ridge looked like a city.  There was plenty of game and then the Washington Dept of Incompetence started their crap.  East or west side tags. Spikes only,3 point or better and so on.  Their management program is a joke.  Some hunts are based on the personnel feelings of an area biologist..He does not have to produce data to back it up.  He can just say it is so, and it is gospel.  I have seen too much to say it just happened.  It is planned.  An example is  one that I have written about before.  Down along the river here in klickitat County, they have three biologists full time working on the Western Pond Turtle, and the Oregon spotted frog.  Now are told at times we don't have the funds to feed a starving herds of elk, but we can harvest the eggs of the Oregon Spotted Frog, take them to Oregon, have then hatched, then when they are large enough to escape natural enemy's, bring them back.  My thought has always been this.  If they don't sell a license to hunt it, or a license to fish for it, then let the Dept of Natural Resources, or Dept of ecology take care if it.
I am sure that a lot of you remember back a few years ago, when the state biologist from Yakima stated that he had found the hairs of a Canadian Lynx.  Then because of questions ask by state Senators and Representives, he recanted and said they were submitted to test the lab that was doing testing for them.  He could have shut down a whole hell of a lot of state and national forrest had he got away with it.  State Senator Honeyford wanted him fired as did some others.  He is still there.  The new director is from the same tree, and Ithink it will be the same b.s.  I have to quit now, as I am sure my blood pressure is about maxed out.  I just don't trust the *censored*s.  Not talkling about the wildlife agents.  They do a good job.

[colockumelk]

That's what I don't understand.  Back in the day our hunting in WA was awsome and there were alot more hunters, the seasons were longer etc.  But now adays our seasons suck, there's far fewer hunters and our hunting sucks worse than ever. 

You would think that with more restrictions and less hunters we'd have more game and better hunting    The only thing I can think of is 1.) horrible game management by the WDFW.  and 2.) Maybe advances in technology.  Such as in the 50's scopes weren't as popular.  Range finders to improve accuracy etc.  and 3.) The increase in road access.  Now adays the roads are nice and every one has 4WD trucks.  And there's a ton of ATV's driving all over. 

I'm not saying go back to flint locks and dis-allow motorized vehicles in the woods.  I'm just saying those three things are the only things I can think of that have had a negative impact on the quality of our game herds. 

[colockumelk]

I just remembered a fourth thing.  Back in the day my dad, uncles Grandpa etc hardly ever saw a bear or cougar.  Now adays it is common place to see them.  I would think this has also had a negative impact on our hunting. 

[Wacenturion]

"That's what I don't understand.  Back in the day our hunting in WA was awsome and there were alot more hunters, the seasons were longer etc.  But now adays our seasons suck, there's far fewer hunters and our hunting sucks worse than ever."


colockumelk.............Make one wonder huh?  I too remember those days.  A lot more opportunity than today...............some habitat related (pheasants), but most management related (big game).


Jerbear..................you hit it pretty much right on the head.