Has WDFW revealed serious fault with Resource Allocation?

[Wenatcheejay]

Dave,

Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. 

[Humptulips]

Don't you know there are now laws that ban trapping and hound hunting? The WDFW can't change that. I wish they could but they can't.

Not quite right. Yea there are restrictions on trapping but not banned. I think you know this.
Here's an idea that I know will never fly but makes pretty good sense to me. Make trapping a legal method of take for cougar. They're in my traps all the time but of course the traps are not big enoughto fit a cougar in. Be easy to build a little bigger trap.
And I might add Maine is the only lower 48 state that has a trapping season for bear and it gets a lot of non-residents that come up for a chance to trap a bear.
They have a number of guide services that specialize in trapping bear.

So they could bring in some out of state money and get rid of a few cougars and  they could possibly do the same with bear. What's the downside to that?

[huntnphool]

 The anti's throw fits about baiting bears for hunting, what do you think they would do if they saw someone walk up to a trapped bear and shoot it when it couldn't go anywhere?

[bobcat]

Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?

Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?

. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?

 Sorry (not really) to pick and choose.....But what was WDFW's official position on those ballot issues?

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

[Humptulips]

The anti's throw fits about baiting bears for hunting, what do you think they would do if they saw someone walk up to a trapped bear and shoot it when it couldn't go anywhere?

If they don't like it the fault is theirs. It is a management option the WDFW has and their options have been reduced to it by those same antis.

I'm not really advocating bear trapping though. I don't think it would work well with the current trapping laws. It could work well with cougar though. They could  give out permits much as they would have in the failed bill to expand the cougar hound hunting pilot project.

I know it will never happen but it's about the only option WDFW has increase the  cougar take. Question is do they really want to do that?

[Dave Workman]

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

Item #1:  Yes, You don't know.  Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.

Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position.  Ask Bearpaw.   Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.

Now, the question>  If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?

[Bigshooter]

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

Item #1:  Yes, You don't know.  Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.

Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position.  Ask Bearpaw.   Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.

Now, the question>  If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?

So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then?  This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.

[CedarPants]

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

Item #1:  Yes, You don't know.  Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.

Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position.  Ask Bearpaw.   Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.

Now, the question>  If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?

So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then?  This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.

You are talking about 2 separate issues here.  1 - the lack of action by our WDFW on these issues, 2 - the liberal voters in this state.  The latter is something we have absolutely no control over, the former has the option of involving themselves or not.

To answer your question though - if the WDFW actually grew some and stated this ban needs to be repealed due to wildlife management objectives not being met, and it STILL fails - then clearly WDFW is not to blame.  I don't see the WDFW doing that though, ever - so the better question would be who do we blame right now?

[Dave Workman]

So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then?  This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.

THEN you blame the Legislature, because they had/have the power to repeal this statute two years after it was passed.

But the onus is STILL on the WDFW, which would have to actively lobby the Legislature and tell them why this statute is a cluster-flop...

But I'm with Cedar on this. I'm not certain they would do it.

[Machias]

Great article Dave!!!

[Elkaholic daWg]

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

Item #1:  Yes, You don't know.  Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.

Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position.  Ask Bearpaw.   Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.

Now, the question>  If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?

 Stop drinking their kool aid and telling us how good it tastes.

[bearpaw]

If I remember right..It was neutral at BEST

You remember correctly. Possibly the best source on this would be Bearpaw.

But I recall this fiasco and at the time I talked to a guy in WDFW who I knew, and he simply said the agency "had to keep quiet" because it was a political issue. Which is bushwa. Idaho and Oregon and Michigan agencies weighed in when the same horse dung kind of initiatives were tried in those states.

The WDFW "greened" out because of political correctness.  It was at that juncture I lost any respect for them as a management agency, not that I had much before that, since the Gardner days and "secret agreements."

Dave is right, the WDFW basically did nothing to stop the ban on hound hunting. It seemed to me that the WDFW managers at that time actually wanted hound hunting eliminated.

[bobcat]

Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.

I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.

Item #1:  Yes, You don't know.  Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.

Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position.  Ask Bearpaw.   Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.

Now, the question>  If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?

No need to get your panties in a wad Dave. What I state on here are my opinions. Not necessarily facts. Same as you. Just because you write something in an article doesn't mean it's true. I'm not defending or apologizing for the DFW. It's just that as far as I know, state agencies are not allowed to lobby for or against initiatives. If you have information that says they can, please post it here.

I'm not sure why you seem to be so sensitive to things I post on here. It's simply my opinion and you don't need to take it so personal. Do you really think everyone is going to agree 100% with everything you write?

[Curly]

Dave,

Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. 

 

[Dave Workman]

Dave,

Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. 

Very kind of you. One of my New Year's resolutions is to continue annoying people.