Brain Storming "How to send the DFW the message"

[Viszla]

I think the #1 thing to help the deer herds would be no seasons after October, period.  Along with that would be no anterless harvest.  As far as crop damage is concerned, I don't have much pity for the "poor farmers" as there are many people (like me) who would gladly thin out some deer on their property if they would let them.

As hunters we should be supporting controlled burns on state and National Forest lands. I've seen many times where people, including hunters, will complain about controlled burns that the Forest Service has planned. After decades of putting out fires, we need to get our forests opened back up and healthy again, and as a result we will see a lot more game. So when you hear of a controlled burn in the works, or a wildfire that the forest service has decided to let burn, don't complain!   

I don't really understand where you are going with this.  Maybe I need better understanding?  Every forest fire I have seen has been very destructive and there are many areas that are still nothing but barren wastelands from previous fires.  Also, most "controlled burnings" I have seen become un-controlled burnings.

[bobcat]

As hunters we should be supporting controlled burns on state and National Forest lands. I've seen many times where people, including hunters, will complain about controlled burns that the Forest Service has planned. After decades of putting out fires, we need to get our forests opened back up and healthy again, and as a result we will see a lot more game. So when you hear of a controlled burn in the works, or a wildfire that the forest service has decided to let burn, don't complain!  

I don't really understand where you are going with this.  Maybe I need better understanding?  Every forest fire I have seen has been very destructive and there are many areas that are still nothing but barren wastelands from previous fires.  Also, most "controlled burnings" I have seen become un-controlled burnings.

Exactly!  You prove my point. Many people are uninformed on this issue. Are you familiar with the Entiat GMU in Chelan County? It burned up in, I believe, 1994. Now it is one of the best mule deer units in the state. Just one example. With more fires, we could have more good mule deer habitat, just like in the Entiat.

Also, as for controlled burns getting out of hand, it does happen, but for you to say "most" of them do couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe the ones you have seen ON THE NEWS, because the ones that go as they should, do not make the news.

[Viszla]

Okay, what about the other side of Lake Chelan.  Manson unit particularily.  Also, when you compare the deer harvet before and after the fire you will see that the fires haven't helped out much.

Here's an idea for the WDFW, they should go around and light the woods on fire.  This is the fix to our mule deer herds!

[bobcat]

Okay, what about the other side of Lake Chelan.  Manson unit particularily.  Also, when you compare the deer harvet before and after the fire you will see that the fires haven't helped out much.

I'd bet many hunters and most biologists would disagree with that.

Here's an idea for the WDFW, they should go around and light the woods on fire.  This is the fix to our mule deer herds!

Great idea! Wish I would've thought of it.  

[bobcat]

Something I googled up:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/fire/prescribed-burning-plan/index.shtml

Positive Benefits for Wildlife
Prescribed fire activities produce many positive benefits for big game animals such as mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and whitetailed deer. The absence of frequent low intensity fires in the landscape due to past fire suppression has caused a decline in forage quantity and quality in many areas of the Blue Mountains.. Also, with years of conifer encroachment, browse species such as bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, aspen, choke and bitter cherry, willow and other hardwoods species have declined or are essentially unavailable as forage. These hardwoods are an important source of high quality forage for deer and elk, especially as they prepare for winter, and again in the spring as they replenish lost body mass from the previous winter. Prescribed fire invigorates both hardwoods and native grass species, making them more palatable and nutritious for big game species. Prescribed fire conducted on big game winter ranges not only improves forage quality and quantity, but it can help keep deer and elk on public lands for longer periods and away from private lands where conflicts can occcur.

Lots more info out there if you Google either "prescribed burn" or "controlled burn."

[Viszla]

I'd bet many hunters and most biologists would disagree with that.

Yep, you are right, I need to give Scott Fitkin a call about that.

Sorry, don't mean to thread jack.

[Gringo31]

In the few meetings I have gone too I am still confused.  I can't tell if WDFW is the boss and uses it's "knowlegde" to manage and regulate or if they are the "employees" driven by the public.  From my experience (most recently the wolf issue).  Some of the people talking have the "shut up and deal with it" attitude because the big Seattle meeting will be very pro wolf.  At what point do they say, "We know how to do our job and we will work on educating you why we do what we do, while continuing to get better as we go along"? 

The game wardens that lined the walls in those meetings had a much different opinion of how wolves should be managed than those presenting.  As stated on here, the problem is that too many "officials" are in Olympia and not in the field or ....well they just don't have a clue.

I don't know that an election is a good thing.  Pierce and King county will put a PETA member in there.  While I realize there are lots of folks that enjoy wildlife besides hunters and fishermen, I do believe that we should get the biggest voice as we foot the bill.  And no, I don't want to discuss the "outside dollars" that come in from specialized license plates.

[ICEMAN]

So I take it my group BA from the parking lot is out?

[Gringo31]

Ya....if it were up to me, I'd nix that one.  Not sure that would send the best message.  This is a problem from the top.  Many of the wardens I talk to GET IT!  But, their hands are tied as well and just doing their job.  You can't address the group as a whole.  It needs to go to the top.

[Wacenturion]

"This is a problem from the top."

and Iceman's is a solution from the bottom....sorry couldn't resist.

[Wacenturion]

On a more serious note..........WDFW has over the past 30 years bred into it's fiber, a mentality of "meeting" wildlife management head on.   Key word "meeting", meaning they sit around in Olympia in meetings brainstorming all things biological.  Problem is it's alot like talking about the grass getting too long and the yard needs mowing.  Unfortunately it won't cut itself. 

Talk is cheap......there are folks in WDFW making decisions that affect us, who's personal legacy will be that they attended a career's worth of meetings (3 decades worth), talked the good talk, and patted each other on the back.  Every 10 years the lingo changes....new buzz words describing the latest management direction like resource allocation, responsive management, ecosystem management and others.  How sad.  If that was the result and contribution of one's career at WDFW, then we as sportsman just paid for a free ride on our license fees.  That's what you are facing folks.  Too top heavy with "wannabe" biologists/managers who contribute little in the overall good of wildlife management or recreational opportunity.

A complete direction change from the top is the only thing that will change that, and sorry to say, that's not going to happen any time soon..

[Wacenturion]

An example of management coming from "meetings"........................from the fishing regs...................

"A new two-pole endorsement - which allows anglers to fish with two rods in most lakes - costs an additional $24.50 for adults; $6.50 for seniors."

For as long as I can remember this was a sure way to earn a ticket, whether it was right or wrong.  If indeed it is right from a fishery management perspective, leave it as is.  If it is wrong and was stupid in the first place, then change it and allow two poles.

BUT..........changing it and charging those prices wreaks of "not sure what to do, but we can justify it if we get more money by allowing it.  That moronic approach to management should tell you just what good hands our resource is in.  Unbelievable!

[Gringo31]

Solid points made...

[flatbkman]

Quote: "1 Your $$$ (my personal choice)"
Do like those (the wolf advocates as an example) go about it. Have at least person assigned to each of the WDFW meetings to talk about a specific point that we as customers of the department want addressed. During their presentations at the meetings have them present to the commission signed petitions for support of their talking point. In addition to the specific persons assigned to the meetings, hire an attorney to be present at each meeting and have them present in legal terms exactly what we want done, and let the commission know if they don't listen to and accept our ideas and wants that legal proceedings may be involved in order to get them to see things our way.   

[Special T]

flatbkman so let me under stand your point?  Take one point at a meeting so that it can be talked about in the 3 min they give you and thenhave a list of supporters? If i am understanding you correctly i like this idea.... We could take 3 people and main points  and be at each metting....
I like the idea because it provides consistency and is brief in the time allotted.