WDFW meeting today

[bobcat]

Well we're off to the meeting in Olympia (Curly and I.)  Hope to see some of you guys there. It should be interesting...

[SkookumHntr]

Giv um hell guys!! Im not able to go

[Ridgerunner]

Looking forward to a report, from the sounds on this board a month ago there were going to be a ton of guys there, I'm guessing not that many will show, thanks for going.

[bobcat]

Very few were there. Very few.

Funny thing is they say the proposal for the new permit system has been known to the public for over a year, and the public supports it. A man from the Game Management Advisory Council was there and he got up and spoke to the commission, and was strongly in favor of the new permit system. Dave Ware, Game Division Manager, gave a report on the new proposed permit system. He mentioned how they discussed different options as to how points would be allocated. The option of letting individual hunters choose which category their points would go was determined to be not plausible due to the complications it would cause.

My biggest complaint, and I will be writing letters to Dave Ware, Jerry Nelson (Deer & Elk Section Manager,) and to the Commission, in regards to this, is that the public was NOT given the chance to provide input to this proposal. They are saying the public was given lots of opportunity to provide input, but we only knew about these changes to the permit system when they posted it on their website sometime in February (2010.) Apparently the GMAC (Game Management Advisory Council) has been involved in this all along. How come the general public was not notified about these changes sooner? I have never even heard of the GMAC until today.

It is obviously too late for them to change any of the proposals at this point. It's a done deal. The only possible thing I can think of that we could ask for, is that they put it off for one more year, to allow time for more public input and for some possible minor changes to the proposals. For me the only change I would really like to see is that points should not be allocated to all categories. But, due to the budget problems I am pretty sure there is no way they will back down on this as they are counting on the additional revenue it will bring in.

[Ridgerunner]

did they have estimates as to the additional revenue.  Thanks for going Bobcat.

[bobcat]

I don't remember if there was an estimate mentioned, but it was brought up that this extra money will be used to fund additional hunter access.

Which was said to be something hunters have indicated they were in favor of, during the scoping process they conducted in 2008.

One other thing I should have said here is that the petition by Stevens County for a 4 point minimum antler restriction was denied.

[Wacenturion]

More public access would be an outcome of additional revenues from this mickey mouse system?  Don't think so.   Since 2000 these same mental midgets have pissed away the best landowner access program in the country, basically eliminating it.  So now they are going to essentially pay for leasing a very, very small portion of private land to replace all the free access they chased off.

Once they start paying for it, the landowners willing to allow public access for free, or sometimes in exchange for shubs, enforcement, whatever..................ARE GOING TO WANT TO BE PAID ALSO.  IF NOT THEY TOO WILL PULL OUT.  THAT WILL HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE ISN'T THAT MUCH MONEY TO GO AROUND.....GET IT!

THEY DON'T!

By the way those GMAC and other committees are business as usual in Wildlife Management.  They use that or other committee to tell the commission or others we have had lots of public input.....which is absurd....nothing but twisting the truth to get what they want.  A lot like politicians.....WDFW knows so much better than us, so they will make the call without even considering your input or how it effects you. 

[Wacenturion]

I don't remember if there was an estimate mentioned, but it was brought up that this extra money will be used to fund additional hunter access.

Which was said to be something hunters have indicated they were in favor of, during the scoping process they conducted in 2008.

One other thing I should have said here is that the petition by Stevens County for a 4 point minimum antler restriction was denied.

Of course hunters are in favor of additional hunter access.  That's like asking if you like or dislike oxygen.  There was no elaboration like do you favor hunting access if we set up a system costing you more for additional permit applications and futher reducing you ability to draw, bla, bla, bla........might get a different response....you think?

[Bob33]

My biggest complaint, and I will be writing letters to Dave Ware, Jerry Nelson (Deer & Elk Section Manager,) and to the Commission, in regards to this, is that the public was NOT given the chance to provide input to this proposal. They are saying the public was given lots of opportunity to provide input, but we only knew about these changes to the permit system when they posted it on their website sometime in January (2010.) Apparently the GMAC (Game Management Advisory Council) has been involved in this all along. How come the general public was not notified about these changes sooner? I have never even heard of the GMAC until today.

But, due to the budget problems I am pretty sure there is no way they will back down on this as they are counting on the additional revenue it will bring in.

Indeed you are exactly correct.  I have written a letter expressing those sentiments to the Commission.  There was not adequate public input.  Apparently GMAC spoke for all hunters.  Up until now I thought they only financed Tahoes.  (You can Google search them and that's about all you will find.  )

As for the increased revenue: as much as I hate to wish ill will on the department, I am encouraging my friends not to apply this year.  Several of us have agreed to do so.  We will be out for a year, but if enough people protested that revenues went down, they might try to undo this.

Heaven help us what Outdoor Central will do with this mess...

[sako223]

What is so different about this? What is being reported meets standard WDFW protocol.
I have stated for years, WDFW crafts a plan, claims public input, then activates the original plan.
I have also stated that we need to show in force, let them know we mean business. Rarely get a reply from hunters. They always expect it is their right and bitch when WDFW changes /reduces anything.

[bobcat]

I wonder why, if this proposal is supposedly so well accepted by the public, how come none of us on here knew anything about the proposal? They talk about how the GMAC was involved and all that, and the GMAC representative talked about how he had many sportsmen's clubs involved and they all stongly supported this proposal. How can this be when we only found out the details of this proposal in January?

[bobcat]

Of course hunters are in favor of additional hunter access.  That's like asking if you like or dislike oxygen.  There was no elaboration like do you favor hunting access if we set up a system costing you more for additional permit applications and futher reducing you ability to draw, bla, bla, bla........might get a different response....you think?

Exactly, I agree. It's the same thing with the changes with the special permits. They asked for the public's opinion, and what they got out of it was that hunters wanted to have better odds of drawing permits. Of course hunters are going to be in favor of better odds. That's a given. Now they make these changes, saying it's for better odds of drawing permits, and hunters have told us they are in favor of this. Wrong. They never asked for opinions on changing the system this drastically. Only the Game Management Advisory Council was aware of the changes, apparently. I had heard it mentioned that they may make a separate pool for antlerless permits. And also that they were making some changes that would improve odds of drawing permits. But they never said what those changes were, until a couple months ago when it was posted on their website.

[SkookumHntr]

thanks for atending the meeting bobcat, I wish i coulda went, it sounds like if every hunter in the state said they didnt like this proposal they are still going to do it! Wdfw is such a joke, including the citizens commission and the whole agency, just a complete joke!

[Curly]

Bobcat didn't mention what the first guy to give public input had to say:  He thought the wolf recovery program needed more breeding pairs of wolves than what WDFW had stated and he wanted more done for wolves in the State.   Must have been a defender of wildlife guy......I muttered something about SSS as he was coming back to sit down after.... but I didn't say it load enough for anyone but Bobcat to hear as not to offend anyone......(luckily the guy left shortly after he said his piece).

[bbarnes]

Bobcat i also was there for a short time and after talking with Dave ware, and irritating the chair with my layman's term of over pursuit, I left. They already have there minds made up, the department is broke and running scared about losing more jobs. As you could see, these people don't know statistics, not to mention they won't answer questions about them. The thing that was the biggest disappointment is the lack of participation. People on this site and others I surf on will spend countless hours, cutting people and the WDFW down but can't spend the time to make a difference. The way I see it is either get in the faces of the Ag committee or start calling your legislation.