Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:02:47 PM
- We had an update on the hoof disease issue. I just posted my thoughts and some key points from WDFW on this complex issue. Dr. Mansfield gave a very good presentation and pointed out that the 15 experts on the independent panel are making progress on this issue, although not nearly as much as all of us would like. The wdfw website has a lot of good information on this issue.
-Next we had an overview of the GoHunt tool and private lands program by Brian Calkins. There have been several improvements and the department is making progress. They are working to update property maps so hunters have aerial maps with property boundaries for all FFTH property. The program is a work in progress and there was discussion about whether the access program is prioritized appropriately. Some regions seem to be doing well, but other regions don't seem to be very successful getting properties enrolled or updating maps.
-There was a wolf update...but not much new information. They are working to trap and collar wolves right now and have some in many packs, but many collars are nearing their end battery life and need replaced. They believe there are packs in SE Washington (Wenaha), but they have yet to confirm a pack at this time in that area. They have photos of a wolf in klickitat county, but no confirmed pack.
-WDFW provided results of public opinion surveys that showed ~88% of Washington residents support hunting. Roughly 60+% of respondents supported some form of wolf control if there were livestock problems or declines in ungulate herds caused by wolves. However, only 38% of folks supported wolf seasons for recreational hunting purposes...so I wouldn't hold out for any wolf tag anytime soon :chuckle:
-Allocation Committee updated the group on their recent meeting. I believe one big take away was that comparing youth, senior, and disabled opportunities it appears youth were not receiving their fair share of antlerless elk tags. The committee recommended correcting this disparity.
-Game management plan update and the new three year package are being updated. Much discussion occurred about various topics, and I can't recall them all. On weapons there was some discussion of legalizing expandable broadheads and .223 caliber rifles for big game hunting.
Many other specific comments on a range of topics that I have forgotten...perhaps other GMAC folks can fill in the blanks or give their perspectives.
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 09:11:55 PM
sent from my typewriter
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 09:14:44 PM
Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk? But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 09:16:48 PM
Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.Don't like it. :bash:
Post by: billythekidrock on June 09, 2014, 09:19:30 PM
Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.Don't like it. :bash:
:yeah:
Post by: grundy53 on June 09, 2014, 09:20:46 PM
There are quite a few states where .223 is legal for deer. Then again there a lot of States where expandable broadheads are legal..Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk? But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.
sent from my typewriter
sent from my typewriter
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 09:23:44 PM
Post by: bbarnes on June 09, 2014, 09:26:45 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 09:32:22 PM
They're the ones who, in 2010, approved of the ridiculous changes to the draw system, which Dave Ware told them had "broad public support." And, nobody on this board had ever heard anything about those changes until it was basically a done deal.
Post by: billythekidrock on June 09, 2014, 09:44:14 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 09:53:37 PM
Thanks for the update.
:yeah:
And, I have to say it's awesome having a member of the GMAC on this board who is willing to share information freely.
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2014, 09:57:03 PM
Thanks for the update.
:yeah:
And, I have to say it's awesome having a member of the GMAC on this board who is willing to share information freely.
Thanks for the update.
There are 3 members that are GMAC members I believe.
Post by: winshooter88 on June 09, 2014, 10:01:08 PM
Just to clear up a point, The GMAC neither approves or disapproves anything. They talk about the issues before them and give their input and the input from the people they represent, ( archery, modern firearms, muzzleloaders and various areas and conservation groups around the state). This input then goes to the director of the WDFW to assist him as he and his staff make the decisions about managing the states big game and hunting seasons for that big game. Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr, I am a member of the GMAC.
Post by: huntnphool on June 09, 2014, 10:04:10 PM
There are quite a few states where .223 is legal for deer. Then again there a lot of States where expandable broadheads are legal..Thanks for the update. .223 for deer? that should get some good debates/threads going.Yes, there was good debate on this about how well designed bullets may well be effective for deer and elk? But WDFW said they could not write a law or rule restricting use of well designed/constructed bullets for big game hunting...way too complex and unenforceable.
sent from my typewriter
sent from my typewriter
Been legal in Montana for quite some time.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 10:06:51 PM
Bobcat,
Just to clear up a point, The GMAC neither approves or disapproves anything. They talk about the issues before them and give their input and the input from the people they represent, ( archery, modern firearms, muzzleloaders and various areas and conservation groups around the state). This input then goes to the director of the WDFW to assist him as he and his staff make the decisions about managing the states big game and hunting seasons for that big game. Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr< I am a member of the GMAC.
Yes, I know all that. I guess my point was that the first time I had ever heard of the GMAC was when Dave Ware told us that the changes to the special permit system had the approval of the GMAC and also had broad public support. I just thought it was odd that at that time, nobody on this forum had ever heard of the GMAC, and none of us had ever heard of the proposed changes to the permit system. Dave Ware told us that the proposals had been in the works for over a year. Yet nobody on this forum knew anything about it, and we had a couple weeks to comment and then it was a done deal.
I wasn't real happy with the GMAC at that point, and I knew Dave Ware was lying about the "broad public support" part. But that's in the past. I don't hold it against the GMAC, I put all the blame on WDFW and especially Dave Ware.
Post by: jackelope on June 09, 2014, 10:07:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 10:09:14 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 10:09:40 PM
Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr, I am a member of the GMAC.:yeah:
WDFW has an advisory group for just about every division/section in WDFW, there's even an WDFW LE advisory group. But the big keyword is advisory they don't vote to approve or disapprove anything. WDFW basically comes to them and says "what do you think about this" and moves on. The ultimate vote still comes from the commission. Advisory groups can say something is a bad idea, but if WDFW wants it, and the commission approves it, then it's a done deal.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 10:12:59 PM
Of course he also told us the extra revenue brought in from all the new applications we were being forced to buy, would be put towards more access to private lands. How much more access to private timberlands do we have as of this year? ???
Post by: billythekidrock on June 09, 2014, 10:16:15 PM
Yes, of course I'm aware that the GMAC doesn't make the final decisions and approvel of policy for the WDFW. But, Dave Ware sure justified the changes to the permit system by what he said was strong support by the GMAC, who nodody had ever heard of. :bash:
Of course he also told us the extra revenue brought in from all the new applications we were being forced to buy, would be put towards more access to private lands. How much more access to private timberlands do we have as of this year? ???
He also said it was the GMAC that recommended removing the buck and bull permits for Master Hunters. Then I heard from a GMAC/site member that that was not the case.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2014, 10:16:43 PM
All very true...that is why I believe it is critical GMAC members share what we hear from WDFW at those meetings. We maybe get a little more insight into what proposals or ideas are coming down the line and this site is a great place to distribute that information. :twocents:Let me say it plainly, the GMAC is an advisory group only, they don't make any decisions or policy for the WDFW. Like idahohuntr, I am a member of the GMAC.:yeah:
WDFW has an advisory group for just about every division/section in WDFW, there's even an WDFW LE advisory group. But the big keyword is advisory they don't vote to approve or disapprove anything. WDFW basically comes to them and says "what do you think about this" and moves on. The ultimate vote still comes from the commission. Advisory groups can say something is a bad idea, but if WDFW wants it, and the commission approves it, then it's a done deal.
Post by: bigtex on June 09, 2014, 10:24:04 PM
Of course he also told us the extra revenue brought in from all the new applications we were being forced to buy, would be put towards more access to private lands. How much more access to private timberlands do we have as of this year? ???Actually WDFW has been making strides in improving access on private lands in SE WA, and a lot of that has to do with the extra revenue. It's been unfortunate to see the decline in access on private lands in the SE portion of the state (mainly due to an aging land ownership in that area) over the past decade but finally WDFW is getting a hold of it and starting to turn the decline around. What did you expect, WDFW to essentially pay Weyco the couple of millions of dollars they could receive if all of their permits sell out just so they wouldn't require an access permit?
Quite honestly, the big timber companies (Hancock, Weyco, etc) are out of WDFW's game when it comes to their private lands program. Those companies stand to make too much money through an access permit then WDFW could provide to keep their lands open. It's a lot easier for WDFW to knock on somebodys door in Whitman County and tell them they'll give them some cash if they allow access to their thousands of acres, then it is to say "hey weyco I know you could make a couple million dollars if all your permits sell out, but how's a couple thousand bucks?"
If we want unrestricted public access to timberlands then it needs to come from the legislature :twocents:
Post by: Lucky1 on June 09, 2014, 10:26:43 PM
Thanks for the update. .223 for deer and expandable broadheads? that should get some good debates/threads going.
sent from my typewriter
:tup: I like both proposals. I'll jump in the debate when and if it happens.
Post by: bobcat on June 09, 2014, 10:32:18 PM
Of course he also told us the extra revenue brought in from all the new applications we were being forced to buy, would be put towards more access to private lands. How much more access to private timberlands do we have as of this year? ???Actually WDFW has been making strides in improving access on private lands in SE WA, and a lot of that has to do with the extra revenue. It's been unfortunate to see the decline in access on private lands in the SE portion of the state (mainly due to an aging land ownership in that area) over the past decade but finally WDFW is getting a hold of it and starting to turn the decline around. What did you expect, WDFW to essentially pay Weyco the couple of millions of dollars they could receive if all of their permits sell out just so they wouldn't require an access permit?
Quite honestly, the big timber companies (Hancock, Weyco, etc) are out of WDFW's game when it comes to their private lands program. Those companies stand to make too much money through an access permit then WDFW could provide to keep their lands open. It's a lot easier for WDFW to knock on somebodys door in Whitman County and tell them they'll give them some cash if they allow access to their thousands of acres, then it is to say "hey weyco I know you could make a couple million dollars if all your permits sell out, but how's a couple thousand bucks?"
If we want unrestricted public access to timberlands then it needs to come from the legislature :twocents:
No, actually I don't expect the WDFW to do anything about providing access to private timberlands. I'm not even one who is against the new access fees. I posted in another thread how I thought we are now better off with the drive in access, seven days/week, for just a small fee. It's worth it for some people, and not for others. But for those who can take advantage of the program, I feel we are now being provided much better opportunities for hunting Weyerhaeuser land than we were in the past.
Sorry, don't want to get this too far off topic. Really my only issue was with the WDFW and how they changed the permit system without any input from the public, and then lied and said they had public support.
If the public had been given a fair chance to weigh in on the topic, and people liked the proposals, then I wouldn't have had so much of a problem with it, although myself, I never would have agreed with the changes that they made and the way they distributed points into all the new categories. But I was sitting there at the meeting in Olympia when Dave Ware said he had "broad public support" for the changes. That was an outright lie and I will never forget it.
Post by: Ridgerunner on June 10, 2014, 06:03:20 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on June 10, 2014, 06:27:57 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on June 10, 2014, 12:30:10 PM
Doesn't sound like any big proposals are coming for the next three year cycle.:mor: The increased late permits in the Methow are ridiculous and once again prove that WDFW's only concern is revenue!
Post by: popeshawnpaul on June 10, 2014, 04:29:14 PM
Sounds like a big did. Were the archery elk seasons addressed?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Archery seasons and allocation issues get addressed in the Allocation Sub-committee, not at the GMAC meeting although I reported on what was discussed at the last Allocation Sub-committee meeting. For years, I've been the WSB/bowhunting rep on the GMAC and Allocation Sub Committee. There are notes taken at these meetings that are distributed and approved so you can go back and look at what happened and have some accountability. I make myself very available to talk with bowhunters and members of WSB so I can accurately represent them.
Post by: dreamingbig on June 10, 2014, 06:14:13 PM
Let us know how we can help the cause.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on June 11, 2014, 07:16:17 AM
Game Management Advisory Council.
They're the ones who, in 2010, approved of the ridiculous changes to the draw system, which Dave Ware told them had "broad public support." And, nobody on this board had ever heard anything about those changes until it was basically a done deal.
Basically the GMAC is nothing more than a PR validation of public support for whatever WDFW's Wildlife Management wants to impose. Always has been. Your comment is a prime example............
Post by: Todd_ID on June 11, 2014, 08:15:27 AM
Make that 4.I can think of 7 or 8, and there're probably more. To think the GMAC is an uninformed group is flat wrong, but to think the GMAC has a bunch of power over WDFW is also incorrect. It's a group to get input; it's role could, and should, be easily expanded to take on the tougher issues by simple agenda changes. Present a topic, and you'll hear crickets. Ask "How?", and you'll get solutions.
Post by: bearpaw on June 11, 2014, 08:52:42 AM
Make that 4.I can think of 7 or 8, and there're probably more. To think the GMAC is an uninformed group is flat wrong, but to think the GMAC has a bunch of power over WDFW is also incorrect. It's a group to get input; it's role could, and should, be easily expanded to take on the tougher issues by simple agenda changes. Present a topic, and you'll hear crickets. Ask "How?", and you'll get solutions.
I'd like to thank all the GMAC members who take the time to be involved. Also want to thank Idahohntr for his reports of the meetings. :hello:
There are some very important topics of concern for many hunters in the new 2015-2021 Game Management Plan. You can help shape game-management priorities here:
2015 - 2021 Game Management Plan DSEIS Comments
https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/gmpobjectives (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/gmpobjectives)