Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 11:05:22 AM
Seems like it would be nice if there was a representative from WDFW to chime in on some of the threads that get discussed on this site where we trash wdfw. If wdfw had someone like Bigtex (who is well respected BTW) who could offer input about WDFW then I think that could go a long way to help with their image.
Plenty of subjects where we complain about the job wdfw is or is not doing. From wolves (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/board,76.0.html) to Sealions (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,96655.msg1249211.html#msg1249211) to elk hoof disease (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153329.0.html) to wdfw's lack of credibility (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,153477.msg2037064.html#msg2037064) to complaints about the special permit system (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,97874.msg1268529.html#msg1268529) to lots of threads complaining about tribal issues, season setting for archery, cougars, need for general spring bear seasons, etc............ lots of issues where we complain about wdfw. Oh, and don't forget the topic about removing The director, chief, and assistant chief (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,149702.0.html) :o
How do we get wdfw to help us change our image of the job they are doing? Lots of us are fed up with this state and are giving up hunting in this state or about to give up in favor of just going out of state. I don't think that is good for the state (having a smaller % of hunters) but WDFW doesn't seem to care about pleasing hunters......but then maybe that is just due to a lack of a good public relations program? Any thoughts? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2014, 11:12:48 AM
Many WDFW employees read this site. So the agency is well aware of any issues that are posted about them.
Post by: buckfvr on May 27, 2014, 11:15:33 AM
I would not expect true feelings from anyone currently employed by wdfw. Dont expect any of them to trash the gravy train.
I have never talked to so many folks this disgusted with wdfw. Although many of us put the blame squarely on the shoulders of management, its hard to overlook the fact that so many know what they are doing is NOT inline with the mission statement, but they are unwilling to rock the boat.
The demise of a once great state is in full swing. :twocents:
Post by: KFhunter on May 27, 2014, 11:21:25 AM
Post by: PolarBear on May 27, 2014, 11:28:54 AM
Post by: Bob33 on May 27, 2014, 11:31:34 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 27, 2014, 11:31:39 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 11:56:27 AM
Seriously, KF hit it pretty well...their diverse funding means they have very diverse stakelholders which means a lot of different folks tugging them in different directions. If they were only trying to serve hunters it would be much, much easier for them to appease all of our concerns. But they are trying to keep a lot of different groups happy and that is a tough job.
Post by: WSU on May 27, 2014, 12:01:46 PM
Post by: t6 on May 27, 2014, 12:08:03 PM
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2014, 12:10:10 PM
They are very aware of it.:yeah:
A) they don't care.
B) the more hunters that get sick of their bs the more hunters that quit hunting. Therefore less people to oppose there real agenda of protecting predators and watchable wildlife...
sent from my typewriter
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 12:10:56 PM
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 12:15:26 PM
Then open up cougar and bear to more liberal seasons, hold coyote contests instead of trying to stop them, allow hunting of coyotes with dogs. Work toward more hound hunting in the state.......basically put a real hurt on predators. :twocents:
Oh, and I'd eliminate the preference point system for special permits. I'd make it like ID.
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 12:19:49 PM
Implementing the Discover Pass opened the door for Weyco to implement their pay for access system. Kind of hard for us to complain about private property owners charging for access when the state is charging taxpayers for access to state timber lands. :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on May 27, 2014, 12:20:10 PM
The second most important issue would be the need to bring back baiting for bears, and the use of dogs for hunting cougar.
None of the other issues really matter until these two are addressed.
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 12:21:50 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 27, 2014, 12:22:55 PM
Post by: seth30 on May 27, 2014, 12:24:48 PM
Post by: RadSav on May 27, 2014, 12:25:57 PM
I think there are some good people in the WDFW these days. But their hands are tied more than I think most of us want to believe. With Lee Ray, environmentalist whackadoodle Spellman, Gardner, Lowry, Locke and Gregoire consecutively it's rather amazing it hasn't completely crumbled. Though it doesn't seem as though that reality is too far away now between the wolves, cougar, hoof rot, steelhead and the sierra club.
Post by: fair-chase on May 27, 2014, 12:38:32 PM
I have heard it stated that WDFW is beholden to many different groups, and therefore they must compromise. I simply do not buy that argument. If WDFW based all of their management practices on (1) the best available science and (2) maximizing recreational opportunities, then none of the opposing voices would have a credible argument. The fact is that WDFW bases it's decisions on political pressure because it's too flaccid to stand behind proven management practices. The wolf plan and the harvest quotas for cougar are two glaring examples of this.
Post by: Bigshooter on May 27, 2014, 12:40:00 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 27, 2014, 12:45:47 PM
I let them know at the meeting on Wednesday that I'm not purchasing special hunt apps for the first time in over a decade. I don't think they care but I'd bet their sales are down, in fact. The dissatisfaction of hunters in this state is growing.
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 12:55:02 PM
Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.
3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW
4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement
5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.
6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.
7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.
8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.
9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.
10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.
11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.
12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.
13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 01:00:37 PM
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but to me an image problem would suggest something that can be cured through a PR campaign. WDFW cannot cure their problems by handing out ice cream cones at kids fishing days or posting cute pictures to a facebook page. There are serious management issues at WDFW that need to be aggressively addressed in order for me to have a favorable view of the department.
I have heard it stated that WDFW is beholden to many different groups, and therefore they must compromise. I simply do not buy that argument. If WDFW based all of their management practices on (1) the best available science and (2) maximizing recreational opportunities, then none of the opposing voices would have a credible argument. The fact is that WDFW bases it's decisions on political pressure because it's too flaccid to stand behind proven management practices. The wolf plan and the harvest quotas for cougar are two glaring examples of this.
Maximizing recreational opportunities for who? Wolf watchers? The Audubon society? Hunters? A balance of multiple user groups?
Much of wildlife management has little to do with science and a lot to do with what the public desires as voiced by elected representatives, user groups, and other stakeholders. WDFW has to balance species recovery, recreational harvest, wildlife viewing etc. as part of their mission...these are not always compatible things, which means there has to be give and take. Scientifically its pretty easy to figure out what needs to be done to increase elk numbers or deer numbers...but the real problems come in the form of what the DIVERSE public really wants. How many elk should we have? How many wolves should we manage for? How many Cougars should we manage for? Its not really up to WDFW to decide whether we should manage for trophy elk hunting or just lots of OTC opportunity...these are social issues to be decided by the public. Again, science and best available science has little to do with how wildlife are managed. The science is really the easy part. Its telling the scientists what we want that gets hard.
Post by: kentrek on May 27, 2014, 01:11:23 PM
On a Side just had a convo today with a bio from oregon checking our fish....dad wanted to know why they dont spend more time doing shyt that would actually make a difference in the fisheries such as culling evasiv fish eating birds...equaly anoyed the bio said "we know...we know exactly what needs to happen...but we have too many special interest groups stopping us every time they try an kill something"...dad says " I know your not dumb, but If they are calling the shots why do we need you ?"...the bio showed alot of frustration with the convo, which is pretty reasonable, but I was pretty glad to see his hate for the special interest groups controlling things
I assume its not much different in Washington
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 01:17:22 PM
These are great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address. The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list. I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do. Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement). Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job, seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.
3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW
4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement
5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.
6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.
7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.
8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.
9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.
10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.
11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.
12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.
13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.
Post by: buckfvr on May 27, 2014, 02:02:16 PM
Even at the expense of my own job, I would want to see a person in tune with his community and his regions needs managing the resources free of Olympias politics.
I would have that elected manager build his team around him/herself, hiring those he needs, and have them all subject to a rotating civilian review board for grievances and complaints.
Regional management would be with out interference from politicians and non-scientific special interest agendas, and be based entirely on the needs of the independent region.
Post by: vandeman17 on May 27, 2014, 02:06:47 PM
If I was the Director, I would lobby for the elections of regional managers who are long time residents of the region they wish to manage.
Even at the expense of my own job, I would want to see a person in tune with his community and his regions needs managing the resources free of Olympias politics.
I would have that elected manager build his team around him/herself, hiring those he needs, and have them all subject to a rotating civilian review board for grievances and complaints.
Regional management would be with out interference from politicians and non-scientific special interest agendas, and be based entirely on the needs of the independent region.
Simple yet would fix MANY issues that seem to plague the system. One of my biggest gripes is people in Olympia who have never even been to many areas of the state thinking they know what's best for the area.
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 02:12:08 PM
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 02:12:37 PM
These are great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address. The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list. I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do. Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement). Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job, seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.
3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW
4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement
5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.
6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.
7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.
8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.
9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.
10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.
11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.
12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.
13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.
I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.
If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.
Post by: stevemiller on May 27, 2014, 02:20:58 PM
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 02:59:24 PM
I know from past experience meeting with legislators that they would take that list and ask for examples of what you have in mind. i.e. wolf management changes-what specifically would you like to see changed, or what tribal issues would you like to see addressed. I suspect that if that list was presented to the reasonable respondents on this forum it would'nt take long to see a refined version for presentation. I think the 1st item (department restructure) is an example of a refined, presentable item. I used to have dealing with Phil Anderson back when he was still a charter boat guy, he is really a better man than most on here give him credit for. I think he has good intentions, he's just in a position where there is just no way to make everyone happy and those who aren't happy seemed to think it's because he's a crook or just doesn't care-neither is the case.These are great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address. The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list. I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do. Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement). Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job, seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.
3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW
4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement
5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.
6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.
7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.
8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.
9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.
10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.
11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.
12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.
13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.
I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.
If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 03:35:07 PM
I know from past experience meeting with legislators that they would take that list and ask for examples of what you have in mind. i.e. wolf management changes-what specifically would you like to see changed, or what tribal issues would you like to see addressed. I suspect that if that list was presented to the reasonable respondents on this forum it would'nt take long to see a refined version for presentation. I think the 1st item (department restructure) is an example of a refined, presentable item. I used to have dealing with Phil Anderson back when he was still a charter boat guy, he is really a better man than most on here give him credit for. I think he has good intentions, he's just in a position where there is just no way to make everyone happy and those who aren't happy seemed to think it's because he's a crook or just doesn't care-neither is the case.These are great ideas, and also things WDFW actually has in their power to address. The next question is how do we as a group of consumptive outdoorsmen get behind, refine, and present such a list. I think WDFW has become an easy target for us to hang our complaints on when it's obvious from the few comments already on this post that there is no real consensus, even amongst ourselves, about what they should do. Seems everyone has a complaint, but not many have a valid solution (that being one that is actually within WDFW's power to implement). Personally I don't think I'd take the directors job, seems he has lots of enemies and very few friends.Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
2. Have all Dept heads re-apply for their position and hold each department head responsible for the satisfaction of their customers.
3. Emphasize Customer Satisfaction throughout WDFW
4. Emphasize and implement multiple steps for Image Improvement
5. If there are funding issues for a particular Dept work to improve funding with the customers of that Dept.
6. Improve the availability for new hunters to take Hunter-Ed, this is the biggest bottleneck to recruiting new hunters.
7. The wolf plan is what it is. However, changes can be made to the plan and changes should be made in the areas where the most dissatisfaction exists.
8. Do more predator management rather than continually looking for ways to reduce predator management.
9. Take a more active approach to resolving the hatchery issues and natural spawning issues. This state needs more fishing opportunity, not less opportunity which is the way we are headed.
10. More emphasis on resolving the elk hoof rot issue.
11. Publicly visible steps to engage timber company issues and ensure continued access to timber company lands.
12. Address these issues of landowners taking advantage of access programs.
13. Publicly visible steps to attempt to deal with tribal issues.
I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.
If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.
I agree with your thoughts on the director and I know there are others who also agree. :tup:
To be effective when making a complaint a person needs to also offer a proposed solution, I am all for looking for solutions to resolve problems. Each item I listed should include proposed actions/solutions if we were going to submit them to WDFW, I got anxious and only went into depth on #1, but we could come up with actions/solutions to each point.
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 03:51:33 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 04:02:19 PM
My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties. Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties. Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt. Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission
Post by: bearpaw on May 27, 2014, 04:10:54 PM
I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters. There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.
My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties. Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties. Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt. Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission
Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?
Post by: idahohuntr on May 27, 2014, 04:24:45 PM
I'd call it "draft language" at this point :chuckle: I would want to refine them to be more presentable if I'm not out in left field on Access issues.I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters. There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.
My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties. Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties. Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt. Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission
Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?
I support most of your other points as well. Number 2 may send the wrong message, not sure I would support that one...but if in #1 all department heads are held to accountable/objective goals...then results will speak for themselves :dunno:
Post by: baldopepper on May 27, 2014, 05:05:10 PM
Post by: RadSav on May 27, 2014, 05:12:41 PM
I agree with you about everyone being unhappy with the director. FYI - In my opinion the current director is the best we've had in decades. Any replacement may be far worse.
If we could come to some consensus on what most agree are good steps, I would attempt to make a recommendation.
I agree with you about the current director. In my dealings with him he has been fair and reasonable. A far cry better than what we had to deal with for a long long time! Of course when the team is not winning everyone want's the head of the coach on a stick ;)
Communication from the directors office would go a long way, I think. A bit of openness and clarity would probably go a long way in crushing conspiracy theories and stop a lot of social gossip before it gets started. I see a lot of the anger and confusion coming from folks not getting a clear understanding of the state of the state wildlife and fisheries issues. The sportsmen I know feel the small round tables and email news briefs are generic talking points leaving as many questions as answers. Sportsmen want to believe their voices are being heard and actions are being taken on issues we find important. And when their voices are heard the immediate demonization of the peoples spokesman seems more common than a clear reflection of what was voiced.
Unfortunately I fear if the director was completely clear about the support he is receiving from above he would likely lose his position. That's a dang tough position to be in when you are being ham strung by your governor and bull whipped by your customer. I certainly would not want the job :o
Post by: fireweed on May 27, 2014, 05:32:28 PM
I also think WDFW could have been advocates for sportsmen to be able to access DNR land without buying a DP. They could have discussed the issue with some legislators and got an exception for the DP requirement for people who buy hunting licenses.Agreed. The WDFW rolled over on the DP--pathetic to get there measly 8%. They did not stand up but were in cahoots to get a few more bucks from us. But don't forget the private timberland owners are charging the taxpayers too. I currently pay about $40 more in property taxes to subsidize Weyerhaeuser. I say Weyco specifically since they own most all the private land around here.
Implementing the Discover Pass opened the door for Weyco to implement their pay for access system. Kind of hard for us to complain about private property owners charging for access when the state is charging taxpayers for access to state timber lands. :twocents:
Post by: Special T on May 27, 2014, 05:35:55 PM
Post by: JLS on May 27, 2014, 06:03:26 PM
I'd call it "draft language" at this point :chuckle: I would want to refine them to be more presentable if I'm not out in left field on Access issues.I'd be interested in working on #12...I continue to be disappointed by the states Access program for hunters. There are definitely people who take advantage of the program; there is no consistency in how the program is implemented state-wide; it is difficult to identify lands and associated boundaries of enrolled properties and I contend it is one of the most important things wdfw does for hunters.
My solutions:
-Evaluate the program not by gross acreage, but by user/recreation days or game harvest on individual properties. Acreage is an easy measure...but it does not capture the "value" of the enrolled properties. Don't pay the guy with 1000 acres of flat ag land with no cover habitat or wildlife value more than a guy who enrolls 200 acres of high quality habitat
-EVERY single enrolled parcel needs to be displayed on a map depicting the boundaries on their website with all the rules and requests of the landowner
-Use hunt by reservation (coordinated by landowner in case he has a few weekends he wants for himself or his friends), feel free to hunt, and register to hunt. Drop this abused "hunt by permission system" where only close friends and family ever get permission
Is that your final language for a solution? if we work it from all ends, the message would be heard.
Will you support #1 or any of the other points?
I support most of your other points as well. Number 2 may send the wrong message, not sure I would support that one...but if in #1 all department heads are held to accountable/objective goals...then results will speak for themselves :dunno:
If I may add my :twocents: on your idea, which I really feel is an area that needs major emphasis. First, the HBR program needs more money, pure and simple. I have two friends that ranch and want into it, but there is not more money to enroll new properties. It's a crying shame, as these are both gems.
Payment is always a tough item. Montana pays its cooperators by the hunter use days, which is flawed in that it rewards quantity over quality. However, if you swing the pendulum too far the other way and pay simply by acre, you may end up sacrificing opportunity at the expense of quality. I am unsure of how Wyoming or Idaho pay their cooperators? I agree with evaluating payment based on habitat quality.
Make the properties walk in only, and have printable maps available on the internet. This is an issue right now, as their are quirks in trying to print out the aerial photos for hunters to take and carry in the field. I never ran into issues, but it sure could happen. Many of the back perimeter boundaries are unmarked and someone that doesn't know or care could easily end up way off the HBR property.
Have printable maps for all enrolled properties available. Right now, you can view them on your computer, but again it's difficult to print a legible/useful aerial.
There are some quirks to the reservation process that could be fine tuned. I stopped by the WDFW office in St. John one day and visited with the bios there about the program and gave them some suggestions on the reservation/cancellation process. They agreed and offered to forward the ideas for me.
I wouldn't waste one minute of my time with the HBWP program. I think that given the appropriate funding, it would die a quick death if HBR ever had enough money. It is abused in some instances, but in others it does provide legitimate opportunity. I think for the money invested in it (not much), there is no harm in just letting it linger on.
I believe 110% that public access to good habitat is the most important thing in perpetuating the future of hunting.
Post by: JLS on May 27, 2014, 06:08:45 PM
I have yet to see a student fail the online course that would have passed the traditional classroom course.
I have comments on #7, but don't want to derail this thread. There are much bigger issues to focus on and work towards. :)
Post by: JLS on May 27, 2014, 06:18:11 PM
How in the world do you focus on customer satisfaction? That is why we have many of the boondoggles that make hunting difficult, like choose your weapon and 5 billion special permit categories. Folks wanted to be able to put in for antlered and antlerless permits, so we get fed the chit sandwich that is our current permit system. Now, if I am content putting in for cow permits I have to compete with all of the quality bull folks who have 15 points.
My point here is that what satisfies one customer completely sets off the other one. If I had my way we would completely overhaul our drawing process, but the folks with 18 points would want to lynch me.
It's also the same reason we poison perfectly good warmwater fisheries in order to put trout in them. It makes no sense to me, but it is what the majority of folks WANT.
I think instead of focusing on a nebulous thing like customer satisfaction, the goal should be to simplify all seasons as much as possible, simplify drawings as much as possible, create as much general opportunity as possible, and limit the special permit focus much more than it is. This will, in my humble opinion, by default lead to greater customer satisfaction.
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 06:37:53 PM
Communication from the directors office would go a long way, I think. A bit of openness and clarity would probably go a long way in crushing conspiracy theories and stop a lot of social gossip before it gets started. I see a lot of the anger and confusion coming from folks not getting a clear understanding of the state of the state wildlife and fisheries issues. The sportsmen I know feel the small round tables and email news briefs are generic talking points leaving as many questions as answers. Sportsmen want to believe their voices are being heard and actions are being taken on issues we find important. And when their voices are heard the immediate demonization of the peoples spokesman seems more common than a clear reflection of what was voiced.This is what I was trying to get at with my original post. Open and honest dialog from the director's office should be able to help their image. Maybe the conspiracy theories about wdfw releasing wolves or being in bed with the timber industry would lessen...........among other topics.
I know the director does frequently go on a radio show on Saturday mornings, but I rarely hear those shows.......it would be nice if he could do a radio address once in a while on weekday evenings (or maybe a blog or something) about what's up with wdfw.
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 27, 2014, 06:39:52 PM
Implementing the Discover Pass opened the door for Weyco to implement their pay for access system. Kind of hard for us to complain about private property owners charging for access when the state is charging taxpayers for access to state timber lands. :twocents:I disagree with this one. Hancock started charging for their lands about 10 years before the Discover Pass came into existence. The Hancock lands which currently charge were previously Weyerhauser and even then Weyco charged access (around $60.) I think Weyco saw how many people were wiling to spend $250-350 to access the Hancock lands in King and Pierce Counties and thought why not us?
Post by: bigtex on May 27, 2014, 06:44:08 PM
While this idea has good intent, the costs would be huge!Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
Instead of having a Director of the Fish Program you would have what, a saltwater director, freshwater director, shellfish director, etc? On the customer service level (the people answering the phones) you have people in the fish program, so would you now need customer service representatives for all those different programs?
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 06:47:15 PM
If Anderson, or who ever else has some say in the department, ACTUALLY wanted to make a statement by bringing together groups over a single issue as a gesture of cooriperation they could find one. Ive said it before thata seperate limit for Mergansers could be that cause. I bet with some work you could get MANY fishing groups to support it, possibly the tribes, EVERY waterfowleing group, and likely any hunter that cares. That is a pretty big chunk of people that you could bring together if you really tried. I KNOW you have to deal with the feds on this... Severl big organisations, tribes and sportmen groups onthe same page would have to make some headway. If not, what other issues do you think you could get so many people to rally around?
I know lots of fisherman as well as hunters would get behind eliminating much of this fish eating birds (cormorants, mergansers, etc), they almost as many people would get behind a cause to eliminate a lage portion of CA sea lions. Sure there would be a fight with some PETA type groups, but when you are on the right/scientific side of an issue then why can't something be done. Now if some good reasons can be given for not even trying, then give those reasons. ........
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on May 27, 2014, 07:06:59 PM
Reference #3, I hate to be a naysayer and not provide any solutions, but here is my rant.
How in the world do you focus on customer satisfaction? That is why we have many of the boondoggles that make hunting difficult, like choose your weapon and 5 billion special permit categories. Folks wanted to be able to put in for antlered and antlerless permits, so we get fed the chit sandwich that is our current permit system. Now, if I am content putting in for cow permits I have to compete with all of the quality bull folks who have 15 points.
My point here is that what satisfies one customer completely sets off the other one. If I had my way we would completely overhaul our drawing process, but the folks with 18 points would want to lynch me.
It's also the same reason we poison perfectly good warmwater fisheries in order to put trout in them. It makes no sense to me, but it is what the majority of folks WANT.
I think instead of focusing on a nebulous thing like customer satisfaction, the goal should be to simplify all seasons as much as possible, simplify drawings as much as possible, create as much general opportunity as possible, and limit the special permit focus much more than it is. This will, in my humble opinion, by default lead to greater customer satisfaction.
This next statement is going to sound odd to some since I started this thread about an image problem, but I do think wdfw puts too much emphasis on trying to please people. Your examples above are perfect illustrations of that.
With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on May 27, 2014, 07:12:39 PM
With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
Post by: Bob33 on May 27, 2014, 07:16:17 PM
In reference to #6, the local instructors have put a huge emphasis on providing on-line Hunter Ed field day courses. These have been a HUGE bottleneck in the past where folks were waiting over a year for a class. We have done a number of these in the past year and have seen a large decrease in the wait time.Last year several of our online evaluations filled up with 90 seconds of registration opening. We've increased our online evaluations by 25% this year. Thankfully, WDFW doubled our pay to compensate us.
I have yet to see a student fail the online course that would have passed the traditional classroom course.
I have comments on #7, but don't want to derail this thread. There are much bigger issues to focus on and work towards. :)
A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2014, 07:17:02 PM
But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
sent from my typewriter
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2014, 07:19:47 PM
And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
sent from my typewriter
Post by: Bob33 on May 27, 2014, 07:20:50 PM
Not exactly. PR funds come from the sale of firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment. This includes purchases made for hunting, but also self defense, shooting, and other purposes.But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
sent from my typewriter
Post by: seth30 on May 27, 2014, 07:21:31 PM
Pro wolf groups :tung:And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bigtex on May 27, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
16% local sources, 12% "other" http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/)And your percentages only add up to 72% where does the other 28% come from?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
Post by: bigtex on May 27, 2014, 07:25:35 PM
WDFW currently gets $107M from the feds, only a small part of that is Pittman-Robertson. A lot of it has to do with the federally managed/protected species in WA. As an example three WDFW Officers are paid for by the National Marine Fisheries Service for federal fisheries enforcement by WDFW. WDFW gets federal funding for all sorts of things.But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
Post by: KFhunter on May 27, 2014, 07:26:15 PM
baby steps
Unless WA voters wakes up and puts in some decent leadership.
Post by: grundy53 on May 27, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
Divorcing WDFW and CNW would be a step in the right direction.
baby steps
Unless WA voters wakes up and puts in some decent leadership.
:yeah:
sent from my typewriter
Post by: snowpack on May 27, 2014, 07:49:18 PM
Post by: RadSav on May 27, 2014, 07:58:04 PM
WDFW currently gets $107M from the feds, only a small part of that is Pittman-Robertson. A lot of it has to do with the federally managed/protected species in WA. As an example three WDFW Officers are paid for by the National Marine Fisheries Service for federal fisheries enforcement by WDFW. WDFW gets federal funding for all sorts of things.But isn't the "fed money" from the Pittman-Robertson act. A.k.a hunters?With that said though, I think they should be doing more to keep sportsmen happy vs caving to any tree hugging groups. I mean we're the ones that have been paying the bills for wildlife in this state. The Wolf plan should not have been drafted like it was and in no way should the commission approved it like that. When the feds say that wolves in the eastern third can be delisted but the the state keeps them protected, that is simply ridiculous. And why do they seem to favor the wolf over the woodland caribou?
Actually when you look at WDFW funding only 27% comes from hunting and fishing licenses. 16% then comes from the general fund (mainly taxes). And for wildlife alone, only 18% of that initial 27% from the wildlife fund goes to the wildlife program. The biggest sole funder of WDFW.....The feds at 29%
P-R is primarily for wildlife/sport fish restoration, public ranges and hunter education. It is not a general fund for WDFW or any other state agencies. It was mismanaged as such for a long time, but it is suppose to have been corrected by the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act in November 2000.
In February The House of Representatives passed an amendment to P-R though an omnibus bill called Sportsmen’s Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act of 2013. To what extent I do not yet know, but I expect we will be getting some good information on exactly what it entails soon.
Post by: Bob33 on May 27, 2014, 08:01:33 PM
I thought I read that PR money dispersed to WA this year was $20M. The money in is from all kinds of sporting goods, not just hunting. I've heard that the feds decide to divvy it up among the states based on the amount of licenses sold in each state, and that Alaska gets the most back mainly due to all the fishing licenses.It is not from all kinds of sporting goods.
Texas gets more than any other state; Alaska is second in funding received.
Post by: RadSav on May 27, 2014, 08:23:12 PM
Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf)
Post by: snowpack on May 28, 2014, 08:51:25 AM
A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.Is this a nationwide thing or just Washington graduates not buying Washington hunting licenses? Since the Hunter's Ed is accepted around most state, I'd imagine they are getting Idaho and Montana licenses. :dunno:
Post by: Bob33 on May 28, 2014, 08:57:35 AM
It's not unique to Washington. There are several theories, one being that many students are taking the class to learn about firearm safety only. For $5, where else can you do that? They do not intend to hunt.A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.Is this a nationwide thing or just Washington graduates not buying Washington hunting licenses? Since the Hunter's Ed is accepted around most state, I'd imagine they are getting Idaho and Montana licenses. :dunno:
The other factor is that after the class is taken plans change: Uncle Ed can't take the boy hunting, football practice gets in the way, land access is more difficult than imagined, etc. etc.
And yes, some take the course to hunt out of state.
Post by: RadSav on May 28, 2014, 09:06:09 AM
The other factor is that after the class is taken plans change: Uncle Ed can't take the boy hunting, football practice gets in the way, land access is more difficult than imagined, etc. etc.
Or the reality of being out of cell range is just too much for many of todays youth :o
Post by: Curly on May 28, 2014, 09:25:26 AM
And another thing, why would new hunters apply into the special permit application system when they see so many people with a dozen or more years of applying not getting drawn. They would have little hope. WDFW really should have eliminated the point system, but instead they went for the money grab and added category after category to keep people hooked on the system. :bash:
Post by: timberfaller on May 28, 2014, 09:46:34 AM
YA that!! if not cell phones, play station/xbox!! :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 28, 2014, 10:56:20 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/)
Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf)
That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. :dunno:
Post by: RadSav on May 28, 2014, 11:06:23 AM
Post by: Bob33 on May 28, 2014, 11:28:18 AM
No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/)
Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf)
That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 28, 2014, 11:33:35 AM
No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/)
Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf)
That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. :dunno:
That seems inconsistent when you look at the list of archery products which are taxed, including sights (and everything else you need to shoot archery). Oh well, I'm happy to be able to say I do my part in conservation.
Post by: singleshot12 on May 28, 2014, 11:48:00 AM
With the lack of a place to hunt (unless you pay for access now) there will be even less new hunters. And even if a new hunter does get out and hunt, success comes very hard these days with the lack of animals, so I see a continued drop in hunter numbers in this state.:yeah:
And another thing, why would new hunters apply into the special permit application system when they see so many people with a dozen or more years of applying not getting drawn. They would have little hope. WDFW really should have eliminated the point system, but instead they went for the money grab and added category after category to keep people hooked on the system. :bash:
It really is one sad joke that is being played here
Post by: RadSav on May 28, 2014, 12:29:29 PM
No; optics are not taxed by Pittman Robertson.http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/grants/wildlife_restoration/)
Check out Appendix "A" page 73-74: Taxable Equipment Items here www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf (http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/WildlifeRestoration-ROI-Report_2011.pdf)
That's a helpful reference, Rad. Thanks. I didn't see rifle scope in there. Are they included? Us archery guys sure seem to do our part on the list. :dunno:
Guess I should have made peep sights for rifles instead of bows! Hard to believe Leupold decided to get into archery sights opening then up to all the additional accounting and liability of FET when they weren't already doing that. Maybe they just loved the Pig Man too much :chuckle:
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2014, 04:25:11 PM
While this idea has good intent, the costs would be huge!Just curious- If you were appointed director what are the top 10 items you would immediately address? (Personnel changes don't count as that's obvious, nor do tribal matters as WDFW has virtually no discretion there, up to the courts)
Good question! :tup:
Here are some quick ideas that come to mind:
1. Restructure Departments clearly identifying the responsibility to the customers each Dept serves. Example: Upland Game, Big Game, Predators, Nongame, Watchable Wildlife, Endangered Species, Shellfish, Salt Water Fish, Freshwater Fish, Hydraulics, etc. Make each of these Departments more separate from each other and charge them with improving service and opportunities to their respective users. This means more and better opportunities for all types of hunters, fishers, and non-consumptive users as well.
Instead of having a Director of the Fish Program you would have what, a saltwater director, freshwater director, shellfish director, etc? On the customer service level (the people answering the phones) you have people in the fish program, so would you now need customer service representatives for all those different programs?
There is already a manager for each of these sections, currently you can call and ask for a specific dept and you get a desk person in that dept, I really don't see much additional cost. More of an emphasis on goals and responsibilities for each dept.
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2014, 04:46:09 PM
What about a free hunting license (not tags) for kids under 15?
Post by: JLS on May 28, 2014, 04:48:19 PM
I also like the idea of increasing the reduced price age to 18.
Post by: bobcat on May 28, 2014, 04:54:32 PM
What do you guys think about increasing the age for reduced-price youth license fees to age 18 instead of only 16? I'm thinking this may attract more youth. Thoughts?
What about a free hunting license (not tags) for kids under 15?
Definitely! I was thinking about this same thing the other day. Why is it 16? At that age they're still in school, no income, and likely very little time to hunt anyway.
Post by: KFhunter on May 28, 2014, 04:57:14 PM
I've been buying youth tags for youths that aren't my youths and at 16 I pretty well quit buying them.
If they went to 18 I'd keep buying them, but they'll most likely go without tags for a couple of critical years of their hunting development.
Then later when they start buying them again they're going out by themselves, without proper mentorship - and possibly lacking proper ethics.
Post by: SCRUBS on May 28, 2014, 05:46:12 PM
I think the first time license/tag purchase should be free.
I also like the idea of increasing the reduced price age to 18.
:yeah:
Post by: baldopepper on May 28, 2014, 06:03:18 PM
What do you guys think about increasing the age for reduced-price youth license fees to age 18 instead of only 16? I'm thinking this may attract more youth. Thoughts?I think that's a workable idea. How would that work on apps, lottery, and limited hunts? I wouldn't be opposed to a "first year free" clear up to age 21.
What about a free hunting license (not tags) for kids under 15?
Post by: RadSav on May 28, 2014, 07:26:13 PM
What do you guys think about increasing the age for reduced-price youth license fees to age 18 instead of only 16? I'm thinking this may attract more youth. Thoughts?I think that's a workable idea. How would that work on apps, lottery, and limited hunts? I wouldn't be opposed to a "first year free" clear up to age 21.
What about a free hunting license (not tags) for kids under 15?
Might be able to keep the state revenue and allow a free or reduced tag for anyone, regardless of age, who passes hunters ed. That way it may fall under federal funding through Pittman - Roberts. I don't see many public ranges and we have a very limited use of NASP in this state. So it would be nice to see some of my FET dollars being used in this state for something other than buying real estate. Even something as simple as a free doe tag application might encourage hunters ed graduates to get a license. :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on May 28, 2014, 07:35:11 PM
How many people on average graduate hunter-ed each year?
Does this state have the ability to put more people through hunter-ed?
Post by: RB on May 28, 2014, 07:45:06 PM
What do you guys think about increasing the age for reduced-price youth license fees to age 18 instead of only 16? I'm thinking this may attract more youth. Thoughts?:yeah:
What about a free hunting license (not tags) for kids under 15?
It would be great for kids to mentored a couple more years. Along with the free license would they be able to shoot grouse/rabbits/squirrels "under adult supervision"? If so that would be even better :twocents:
Post by: Savage.06Shot on May 28, 2014, 07:58:42 PM
Post by: Curly on May 28, 2014, 08:31:40 PM
Post by: baldopepper on May 29, 2014, 06:34:17 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 29, 2014, 06:44:18 AM
Kind of hard to get new hunters interested if the hunting sucks. Bird hunting is a great way to get new hunters because there is usually good action, but even bird hunting in this state is declining. My dad got me into hunting by taking me grouse hunting; now we would have to pay for access to go to Vail where I grew up grouse hunting.
There are two separate issues here: the WDFW's image and hunting opportunities, especially for youth.
As far as the hunting sucks comment is concerned, I would say that in some areas of the state, you're correct. But, I think that's going to be true in all states. If you just throw up your hands and say "screw it", and don't bring kids into hunting or reflect a bad attitude about it, our sport will die. Hunting should live long after the present administration of the WDFW is gone. Our enthusiasm for the sport shouldn't be dependent on them, but on our love of hunting. If you're not finding opportunities to get youth into it, look harder. A beginning hunting trip could be sage rats, coyotes, other small game. Our state's turkey population is growing steadily. And, there are areas of the state where there is good elk and deer hunting.
If you're truly concerned about youth hunting an have a youth(s) who needs a good start, I would suggest finding some landowners on this site who would let you hunt small game on their property or pour over maps and do it on some public land. Don't let the administration of the WDFW dictate your hunting legacy.
Post by: Curly on May 29, 2014, 07:21:25 AM
Post by: Special T on May 29, 2014, 07:26:57 AM
Post by: t6 on May 29, 2014, 11:14:11 PM
I recently got an e-mail from someone at WDFW that included a quote that I made on this site.
The question is do they care enough to do anything about it?
Post by: Tbar on May 29, 2014, 11:30:29 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on May 29, 2014, 11:38:18 PM
If some people knew how often individuals within the wdfw went to bat for sportsman I think they would be embarrassed at the comments made.:yeah: :tup:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on May 30, 2014, 05:24:45 AM
Post by: Special T on May 30, 2014, 06:48:35 AM
If some people knew how often individuals within the wdfw went to bat for sportsman I think they would be embarrassed at the comments made.
How in the hell did they get your email and connect this site to you?
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2014, 06:53:00 AM
A troubling problem is how many hunter education graduates don't buy a hunting license.
I'd attribute that to parents being fed up with Washington and taking their kids hunting out of state.
Post by: t6 on May 30, 2014, 07:24:08 AM
Post by: Special T on May 30, 2014, 07:26:04 AM
Post by: Ducks on May 30, 2014, 12:30:07 PM
WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.
I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.
I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 30, 2014, 12:35:12 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2014, 01:48:54 PM
I have read with interest a number of the postings. I do understand and recognize that we have an image problem, that is to say, I know there are a number of hunters that don't trust us or respect what we do or how we do it. I also know by reading some of the postings that many think the problem is with management and some think that we just don't care. Well I am writing as your director to say that I do care.
WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.
I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.
I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
If this is indeed a legit post then I for one welcome you and your opinions to the site wholeheartedly.
Welcome to the site and I hope you plan to stay and brought thick skin! ;)
Post by: Curly on May 30, 2014, 01:53:32 PM
I'm glad you care and glad the department understands the distrust we have toward WDFW. It really is good to hear straight from the horses mouth. Thanks. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on May 30, 2014, 02:16:27 PM
I have read with interest a number of the postings. I do understand and recognize that we have an image problem, that is to say, I know there are a number of hunters that don't trust us or respect what we do or how we do it. I also know by reading some of the postings that many think the problem is with management and some think that we just don't care. Well I am writing as your director to say that I do care.
WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.
I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.
I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
Welcome to the forum Ducks and thank you very much for your response.
We live in a very polarizing time, I think everyone realizes there are many issues and interests a director must consider and most know that no matter what you do you will never satisfy everyone all the time. I do hope the many comments on this forum can provide you with some insight regarding the issues that are most important to hunters, fishers, and other recreational users.
While at times I've been quite critical of WDFW handling of certain issues (primarily wolves, lack of other predator management, and limited availability of Hunter-Ed classes), I am also very supportive and appreciative of other aspects of WDFW and of your efforts to maintain good opportunities for most users. Please try to maintain opportunity for all users, we should not allow trapping, hound hunting, or other forms of hunting or recreation to be completely lost from Washington. WE (all of us) are counting on YOU and WDFW to manage our resources in a manner that best perpetuates our wildlife into the future and provides opportunities for everyone to continue enjoying our sporting heritage in Washington.
As far as image, I think many hunters and fishers feel abandoned by WDFW, there is a general feeling that many game species and hunting opportunities are being neglected by WDFW. Part of that may be a lack of communication and transparency. I am very enthused by the recent attention given to access issues, hoof rot, and the governor's interest in improving recreational opportunities in Washington, including hunting and fishing. I see these actions as moving in the right direction, I would encourage you to continue in these directions and to be as open and forthcoming as you can with the sporting community, that should help with the image problem.
I've been fortunate in life to experience the outdoors to the fullest and in recent years I've also had the feeling of wanting to "give back". I know that everyone does not share this same opinion, but I think in many respects you've been the best director we've had in decades, so thank you for your service and for "giving back" to Washington. :tup:
Post by: RadSav on May 30, 2014, 03:27:54 PM
Ducks, Thank you for the wonderful email and for posting here on the site. I hope you can continue to add clarity and post the other side of the story in the future. I know for myself, the confusion created by not receiving complete and accurate information leads to a lot of my anxieties and hostility. I look forward to hearing more in the future.
Post by: huntnphool on May 30, 2014, 03:47:17 PM
Bearpaw, great post! Very much the same thoughts and feelings that I have.+1
Ducks, Thank you for the wonderful email and for posting here on the site. I hope you can continue to add clarity and post the other side of the story in the future. I know for myself, the confusion created by not receiving complete and accurate information leads to a lot of my anxieties and hostility. I look forward to hearing more in the future.
Post by: bigtex on May 30, 2014, 07:45:11 PM
Post by: sakoshooter on May 30, 2014, 10:15:08 PM
I have read with interest a number of the postings. I do understand and recognize that we have an image problem, that is to say, I know there are a number of hunters that don't trust us or respect what we do or how we do it. I also know by reading some of the postings that many think the problem is with management and some think that we just don't care. Well I am writing as your director to say that I do care.
WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.
I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.
I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
Ducks, Welcome to the site. First off I'm glad to hear that you do hunt and fish. I know many in your building that do neither, consequently they don't even support their own job or company via the license system. Nor can you have a thorough understanding(from a hunter/fisherman standpoint) of game or fish without spending time in the field pursuing them.
If I can pass along one statement to you for consideration it would be to stop the evolution of hunting/fishing in WA from a fun, affordable sport that also allows a person to put food on the table to an expensive, barely able to afford a few tags sport fit for the wealthy. Our system is going down this path rapidly sir.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 30, 2014, 11:33:13 PM
When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
I have said repeatedly on this forum, and your post confirms my feelings, that WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in the state of Washington. I appreciate you and your staffs willingness to serve us sportsmen in the myriad of complex natural resource issues found in Washington. While I would agree that caring about the image of WDFW as perceived by its core stakeholders is important, it is 2nd in my book to doing the right things for the natural resources in our state. I have great respect for somebody like you that knows full well you are not going to win any popularity contests but yet you serve anyways.
One other thing that jumps out to me: the fact that you are 64 and noted that 40 states have replaced directors in the last 3 years...I hope you are willing to stick things out for several more years. I think we need a director who is at or eligible for retirement and won't be intimidated into doing the politically popular thing simply to save his/her job. If you resign and get replaced by somebody who's got some time to go before retirement...how willing are they going to be to stick their neck out for sportsmen on controversial issues? How willing is the next director going to be to send letters to USFWS strongly urging the de-listing of wolves in the western 2/3 of WA or make the call to remove wolves lethally knowing that anti-hunters and activists are going to flood the Governors office with calls and letters? While I don't think anybody could possibly blame you for retiring tomorrow, I hope you are around for a while making the tough decisions in the interest of the natural resources enjoyed by most of the citizens in this state.
I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: RadSav on May 31, 2014, 01:03:16 AM
I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out? :chuckle: :chuckle:
Now that he is a member, I wonder if we will see Ducks trying to win a muledeer mounting kit in the "Special Permit Guess Game 2014" :chuckle:
Director, director the special permit results came in early and they are ready to post! Should we post them now?...
Don't Post Them Yet!!! My H-W time slot doesn't come up until 4:33PM tomorrow!!!
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2014, 05:38:01 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 31, 2014, 07:49:36 AM
I don't believe that the department has been aggressively enough pursuing hoof disease. The appearance, whether valid or not, is that so far, little or no attention is being focused on big timber's use of herbicides. We know from attending meetings with both the working group and the assistant wildlife director that when toxicologies have been performed, there has been zero testing for agricultural chemicals. Only recently has the department ramped up verbiage about herbicides in its presentations. We also know that the reports of affected animals began to spike in 2008, yet it was almost 5 years before information started going out to the public and much of that, speculative. We know there was no sampling done of affected elk during the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. We're being told that the meat is safe to eat and yet, that they don't know what's causing the disease. It seems to me that without knowing the cause, it would be impossible to say with any certainty at all that the meat is safe. I believe that this is being done to avoid a huge loss in tag sales from hunters who only hunt these areas. If the meat is found unsafe to eat, who in their right mind is going to spend the money we spend on elk hunting and take the chance of contracting a disease or illness? There are so many inconsistencies with regard to this disease and what we're being told that is makes your head spin.
Hunting access on private lands. My personal feeling is that the relationship between big timber and the department (and most politicians) is too close, especially in light of the fact that an enormous amount of their lands have gone pay-to-play over the last few years. According to one quote about 6 months ago, much of this came as a complete surprise to the department. How is it that such a huge portion of SW WA has gone pay-to-play and no one knew it was coming? For the average Joe on a low income in an unstable economy, this can mean an end to hunting at all. Hunting is supposed to be for all of us, not just those who can afford it. I believe the department should be pounding big timber's table and letting them know that taking away public access should mean the department's support of their land management will change - heavier restriction on bear and elk management and support for a new tax structure which adequately reflects the changes to public access. Although I understand that big timber has a right to do with their private lands as they wish, I also understand that taking 10s of 1000s of acres of land out of unrestricted public use is a game changer.
Predator management. By the time we reach the established goals of the wolf program where ongoing management (read hunting) can commence, portions of our state will be in dire trouble. The addition of an apex predator to our already under-managed predator population is going to hurt ungulates badly. In addition, given that our population density is 16 times that of MT, there's no way that the department should have supported a plan which calls for 50% more wolves and a 3-year waiting period once goals are met. In comparison to MT and ID, who are now realizing severe economic and wildlife management backlash from their plan, we may have a complete meltdown. Cougar populations are at full carrying capacity statewide and the seasons should be extended and the tags, next to nothing to pay for. Without consistent use of hounds being available, we must do everything possible to increase the take of cougars by hunters. I believe that it is scientifically prudent to open the season year round. New evidence in ID has shown that what we have traditionally thought are the norms for population densities of cougars may have been grossly underestimated. Incidental harvest of cougars is miniscule. Open it up. In like fashion, more areas should be opened to spring bear. There is no reason that more westside units and permits shouldn't be opened to spring bear. And, if the timber companies want more bear control on their private lands, permit holders should be given free access. Otherwise, choke off their ability to manage until they become more hunter-friendly.
Hunting Season Changes - I'm an archer, so I can only comment on what has happened to our seasons. We lost a few days in the early season and the dates moved to a rotating schedule instead of fixed dates. Supposedly, the late season was increased. But, fewer and fewer units are available to archers in the late season and now, most of those in W. WA will require paid access permits. In light of recent developments, the season should be returned to a fixed 8th-20th of September. The hunter infighting that was caused 20 years ago by separating hunting methods continues today. We're all hunters, but out of necessity, we're pitted against each other in an attempt to gain reasonable access to dwindling hunting opportunities. WA is one of the few states where the method of hunting must be chosen. In most states, hunters may hunt each season for which they possess a tag and the proper firearm/implement. By segmenting the hunter populations, the department has effectively split the hunter groups into fractions which can be more easily dealt with or manipulated. This is counter-productive and will negatively affect hunter participation increasingly at a time when hunter numbers are already falling each year. The stronger that hunters are as a cohesive group, the better the outcome for hunting in general and the more job security for the department with solid hunter support and numbers. If hunters continue to be segmented and opportunity continues to fall, we will lose our heritage and the department will lose its revenue. Lose-lose.
4 years ago, I became a Master Hunter. That awakened in me an even deeper love for the sport with which I was already obsessed, but more, a responsibility to fight for wildlife, conservation, hunter access and satisfaction, and wildlife management which enhances abundant wildlife and hunter opportunity. The department may well rue the day they gave me that certification, one which until recently I'd considered surrendering. But I will continue as a MH to push the department where I think it's faltering and I will continue to contact my legislators to support hunting access and sensible management. I'd love to say that we have a department which recognizes and is addressing the challenges that wildlife and WA hunters face in the field and in the regulations. But at this point, that's just not how I feel. Thank you for considering my comments.
Post by: jackelope on May 31, 2014, 07:59:36 AM
Quote
Hunting Season Changes - I'm an archer, so I can only comment on what has happened to our seasons. We lost a few days in the early season and the dates moved to a rotating schedule instead of fixed dates. Supposedly, the late season was increased. But, fewer and fewer units are available to archers in the late season and now, most of those in W. WA will require paid access permits. In light of recent developments, the season should be returned to a fixed 8th-20th of September The hunter infighting that was caused 20 years ago by separating hunting methods continues today. We're all hunters, but out of necessity, we're pitted against each other in an attempt to gain reasonable access to dwindling hunting opportunities. WA is one of the few states where the method of hunting must be chosen. In most states, hunters may hunt each season for which they possess a tag and the proper firearm/implement. By segmenting the hunter populations, the department has effectively split the hunter groups into fractions which can be more easily dealt with or manipulated. This is counter-productive and will negatively affect hunter participation increasingly at a time when hunter numbers are already falling each year. The stronger that hunters are as a cohesive group, the better the outcome for hunting in general and the more job security for the department with solid hunter support and numbers. If hunters continue to be segmented and opportunity continues to fall, we will lose our heritage and the department will lose its revenue. Lose-lose.
P-man-
Are you a member of WSB?? If not, I would encourage you to join.
Have you seen this thread?
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154125.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,154125.0.html)
The strongest advocate for bowhunters in this state and not a single comment from anyone except the president and the VP.
Unfortunate.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 31, 2014, 08:01:41 AM
Post by: Curly on May 31, 2014, 08:12:47 AM
Good points IDhuntr. You bring up delisting; that is one of the many frustrating things about wdfw. The feds allow the eastern third to be delisted, but yet wdfw has a ridiculous wolf plan in place and won't delist the wolf where the feds allow. The Wolf plan they came up with really does seem like a slap in the face to us hunters. I under stand that wdfw tried to keep the wolf huggers happy, but you can't convince me that science would dictate a plan like they came up with. I was very disappointed that the commission approved the plan.When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
I have said repeatedly on this forum, and your post confirms my feelings, that WDFW is the biggest ally sportsmen have in the state of Washington. I appreciate you and your staffs willingness to serve us sportsmen in the myriad of complex natural resource issues found in Washington. While I would agree that caring about the image of WDFW as perceived by its core stakeholders is important, it is 2nd in my book to doing the right things for the natural resources in our state. I have great respect for somebody like you that knows full well you are not going to win any popularity contests but yet you serve anyways.
One other thing that jumps out to me: the fact that you are 64 and noted that 40 states have replaced directors in the last 3 years...I hope you are willing to stick things out for several more years. I think we need a director who is at or eligible for retirement and won't be intimidated into doing the politically popular thing simply to save his/her job. If you resign and get replaced by somebody who's got some time to go before retirement...how willing are they going to be to stick their neck out for sportsmen on controversial issues? How willing is the next director going to be to send letters to USFWS strongly urging the de-listing of wolves in the western 2/3 of WA or make the call to remove wolves lethally knowing that anti-hunters and activists are going to flood the Governors office with calls and letters? While I don't think anybody could possibly blame you for retiring tomorrow, I hope you are around for a while making the tough decisions in the interest of the natural resources enjoyed by most of the citizens in this state.
I have one last and very important question though: When will the draw results be out? :chuckle: :chuckle:
I also agree with your comment about how doing the right thing should come above keeping us happy. I believe that the current special permit system was implemented in part because of complaints about people not drawing after 15 years of accumulating points.
wdfw just seems to be trying to increase predators in this state. They try to eliminate night hunting, coyote contests, they did eliminate hunting coyotes with dogs. All of these issues I think happen due to pressure by anti hunters; I just wish wdfw would stand up for us hunters in these instances. Just seems that if wildlife in the state can be managed by good science then us hunters would benefit by having healthy game populations.
I do think the director has an almost impossible job, and I suspect the commission is a big road block at times. I know I couldn't do his job. I do appreciate the decision he made last year to kill several of the wedge pack wolves.....that did take balls to make that call when he knew he'd get complaints from wolf huggers.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 31, 2014, 08:17:06 AM
Post by: RadSav on May 31, 2014, 12:47:29 PM
Will he be a daily contributor? I doubt it. I think he has enough on his plate that he doesn't, nor should he, want to be rambling about on H-W. However, the post was encouraging that we might hear more from the horses mouth without all the garbage fill and lack of clarity often found in WDFW news letters.
We asked if the WDFW knows it has an image problem. We asked if the director cares. We asked if the WDFW was listening. And instead of sending some crony talking head the director himself took the time to become a H-W member and contribute a nice post. I think we have to appreciate that despite our conflicting views and Romper Room behavior.
Would I expect the director to acknowledge ucwarden in an open forum? No I would not. That would likely be legal and political suicide. I expect a man with his background is smart enough not to get backed into that corner.
Did the director answer all the questions we had and in a manner that satisfied all of us? No! It is my hope, however, that if we conduct ourselves with a bit of civility, respect and integrity there will be more posts coming from our director. And then, just maybe, as we both become more comfortable with the correspondence the dialog and topics can expand and both the director and H-W members can benefit. Leading to a greater respect for one another and an expanding dialog of clarity that would then be made possible by a solid relationship.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 31, 2014, 12:55:20 PM
Post by: RadSav on May 31, 2014, 02:18:36 PM
I agree, Rad. To me, however, that doesn't mean tip-toeing around the issues that negatively affect wildlife and hunting in our state.
I don't think anyone should tip-toe around a thing. Though I do think we need to be reminded, occasionally, that strength of conviction and standing up for what we believe can be done without sacrificing mutual respect and integrity.
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when I find myself involved in political matters. World leaders respected them and feared them both. That came from being educated on the issues, fiercely standing their ground, being aggressive and all while never giving the appearance of being disrespectful or acting with a loss of integrity.
Post by: Special T on May 31, 2014, 10:02:21 PM
There is an Axiom in Business that it is much easier/cheaper to keep a customer than get a new one, and a spurned customer will cost you 10x as much as whatever the disagreement was over. For what ever reason the WDFW has the hard route to travel to repair their image and quiet spurned hunters. The Director showing up here IS GREAT! It is however just the first step. I'm happy to know that the Director is a fellow duck hunter and his words are encouraging. So far they are just that... Words...
I appreciate the complexity and difficulty of rebuilding the relationship between the department and the sportsman, but that does not mean we should giver Director Anderson or anyone else a pass.
Post by: stevemiller on May 31, 2014, 10:10:52 PM
Post by: t6 on June 01, 2014, 12:37:13 AM
Post by: Special T on June 01, 2014, 08:56:40 AM
1 Hire people who hunt and fish. I have been into the SW regional office and we had to search for a hunter to help answer a question about the Shilapoo Wildlife area (Which is only about 5 miles away). Its really a no brainier because Thier passion will help them succeed at the job.
2 Pic some issue that can bring lots of SPORTMEN user groups together. Something that nearly everyone can get behind. There may be other ideas but i really like pushing for a separate bag limit for Mergansers. Its not easy but I think you could get fishermen, Hunters, Tribes and several wildlife organizations behind it.
Since the director is a Duck hunter i think this would be great because he wouldnt have to study up too much on the subject, and likely has an idea of how it would work.
Post by: RadSav on June 01, 2014, 09:47:50 AM
Seems there are too many contradictions between what we are told and what we are seeing on the ground. There also seems to be contradictions between what we are being told and the structure of the seasons. I know that for myself, I would be much more willing to sacrifice some things and regulate harvesting to a greater degree if I felt there was a clear understanding of where we are.
Instead what we hear are things like;
*The Winston bull numbers are as strong as ever...but we need to make late archery cow only.
*We need to reduce the number of winter kill in the mud flow...So we are issuing 650 cow tags.
*Predation is effecting the Klick deer herd...but we need to close cat hunting during the best dates and reduced the quota. And my favorite - If you kill a mature tom it's just going to lead to more cats!
*We have lost 50% of the St Helens elk herd to hoof rot and we do not know the cause...but we do not want any outside independent assistance in dealing with the issue.
When "what you say" and "what you do" conflict with logic and reason there are usually one of two things responsible. Either someone doesn't have a clue as to what they are doing! Or, one if not more things we are hearing is not true! I can't help but think there is a little bit of both almost everywhere in this state. We are big boys and I believe we can handle the truth. I also believe there are some employees of the WDFW with fancy degrees that should have failed to graduate. Those employees need to be hitting the unemployment line!
I often feel as though people are being managed rather than the wildlife in Washington. Some good honest clarification on the issues and the state of wildlife in each region would go a long way to making myself and others feel better about why. I see and read the annual regional reports, but many just do not add up no matter how open minded I try to be.
Post by: Curly on June 01, 2014, 10:01:31 AM
Sent from my SM-T900 using Tapatalk
Post by: jongosch on June 01, 2014, 12:24:18 PM
I believe that you care. The question for me is whether you have the backbone to stand up to the timber industry and direct your employees to conduct an honest investigation regarding toxic herbicides and the edibility of the elk meat in SW Washington. Prove that and you will have my trust and respect. Until then you can expect me, my family, and dozens of our friends to fight WDFW with everything we’ve got.
http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/ (http://jongosch.com/citizens-express-profound-distrust-of-fish-and-wildlife-officials-herbicide-spraying-and-safety-of-elk-meat/)
Post by: Oldguy on June 01, 2014, 01:52:03 PM
Questions for Hunter Ed Instructors:
How many people on average graduate hunter-ed each year?
Does this state have the ability to put more people through hunter-ed?
I was told at a meeting last week that 14,000 graduated last year. There are shortages of instructors and no real intelligent effort to recruit more. Any suggestions regarding better methods are met with lack of interest.
Post by: JJD on June 02, 2014, 11:35:16 AM
I have read with interest a number of the postings. I do understand and recognize that we have an image problem, that is to say, I know there are a number of hunters that don't trust us or respect what we do or how we do it. I also know by reading some of the postings that many think the problem is with management and some think that we just don't care. Well I am writing as your director to say that I do care.
WDFW does confront a number of controversial issues. As director, some of the decisions I have made have been easy, not that the issue was easy, but knowing the difference between the right decision and the wrong decision made it easy for me based on my values. Others are much different in that among the choices I have all have drawbacks, and sometimes that is a gross understatement. But, in every case, I make every effort to equip myself with all the knowledge on the subject I can and then make the decision that I think is the best for fish and wildlife and the people that care about them.
I also reviewed some of the suggestions on where a director should focus his/her efforts. Not surprisingly, I agree with some of them and disagree with others. I have some basic priorities in terms of where I spend my time. Some of them are internal like working closely with the Wildlife, Enforcement, Habitat, or Fish Program leadership on critical contemporary issues, another internal priority for me has been having a quality and committed staff; some are external like working with congressional members and state legislators and their staff regarding budget and policy issues impacting the Department, attending stakeholder meetings or interacting with leaders of organizations that represent our customers/stakeholders, working with the tribes on fishing and hunting issues takes a good deal of my time, working with federal agency leaders on issues we have a common interest like NOAA Fisheries, USFWS, National Park Service, Army Corps of Engineers; I also work closely with the Governor's Policy Office and other state agency directors and the Commissioner of Public Lands. My bosses, the Fish and Wildlife Commission, is another area where I devote a significant amount of time. Finally, there are always a list of "hot issues" that I am intimately involved in that includes things like hoof disease, wolves, land acquisitions and public access, federal Funding issues, state/tribal fishing and hunting issues, Wanapum Dam and Fish Passage, several lawsuits including the Wildfish Conservancy and Skokomish Tribe lawsuits.
I have hunted (mostly ducks and upland birds) and fished (mostly salmon, halibut, albacore) all my life. I have been director since December of 2008 including the 9 months I was interim director. When I took the job I knew full well that I wouldn't be winning any popularity contests, but I took it because I wanted to give something back to the resource, I had already taken more than my share of some species. I was recently told by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Association Executive Director that 40 states had replaced their directors within the last 36 months. I am 64 years old and you will get another director sometime down the road. Until that happens, I will continue to the best job I can for fish and wildlife and for the people who care about our natural resources. If that can include helping with changing the image of the Department in the eyes of our customers/stakeholders to a more positive one, I welcome that opportunity....because I do care.
Ducks,
Thanks for posting up on this thread and welcome.
Read your post with great interest and I was not surprised that you did not address any issue.
What I got out of it was I’m busy as h*ll, spread thin and contrary to popular belief, I do care. If this was your goal, mission accomplished, though it read a bit like a political speech.
Ok, great. I know you don’t have all day to sit at your computer and address each of our individual concerns. I don’t have all day to sit at a computer and read them either. I still work for a living and most of my days off, I spend living the outdoors rather than talking about it. Others can do whatever turns their crank.
A suggestion if I may. How about taking a single issue from a list of topics we provide here and addressing it. Maybe one a month, or something to that effect. Or maybe having one of the dept heads or other qualified person representing you, address the subject if they have expertise in the field of said question?
Many of us read the words, "I do care" but will judge their validity by future actions.