Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 07:33:19 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 24, 2014, 07:34:09 PM
Post by: Special T on June 24, 2014, 08:29:24 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 25, 2014, 06:38:06 AM
Non-toxic Ammo
Wolf Plan progress & Other predator Issues
Ungulate Health/hoof disease, hair slip, CWD, population levels
Private Land Access/Landowner Participation
Non Toxic Ammo - Ware stated that a voluntary compliance program is being considered to protect WA birds of prey, specifically the golden eagle, which has poor population figures and some of the dead birds tested for toxicity test positive for lead poisoning. He stated that other states like UT and AZ have had good success in getting hunters to voluntarily move to non-toxic ammunition for hunting season. They're not talking about backing a ban. I wasn't able to get to this issue with him face-to-face.
The Wolf Plan is estimated to be complete by 2021, including the migration of the projected number of packs and the waiting period. They briefly touched on ungulate populations and that management is possible if numbers are shown to fall below certain limits. The eastern third of the state may delist before the 2021 date if pack numbers/numbers of animals reach goals and/or conflicts become more frequent. Another issue I didn't get to discuss with the predator guy in great detail. We did discuss the possibility of opening up cougar seasons to year round. The birthing period of Spring -Summer is a problem that has kept them from doing this in the past, although it's been considered. If there were ungulate populations at risk or a rise in human/cougar conflict, they would consider opening the season up more in that area and develop a program to allow more contracted hunting with hounds. He said it's essential to present a specific problem and then a plan would be developed to address the situation, including high harvest goals of 30+%.
Ungulate Health - There was little new information on hoof disease, except that they say they're sure it's the treponemes now. I asked about Dr. Fairbrother's presence at the last meeting on June 3rd and they invited her because she was an expert on herbicides with relation to animals, not because Exponent was a company which represented chemical companies in liability claims. I made the statement that in matters like these, inviting someone like Fairbrother gives the appearance of impropriety, and the appearance is enough to raise questions. Jerry Nelson, although he agreed with little I had to say, agreed with that. He also said that four scientists discussed Dr. Boone Mora's theories with him at that meeting and that the results of testing that had been done here in WA, WY, and CO had not bore him out. Safe to eat. Nothing to see here. No CWD in the state yet. According to harvest figures, it seems that blacktail population numbers in the same area of the hoof disease seem fairly consistent, although the last few years, harvest numbers have fallen slightly. Hair loss reporting is far lower than the late 90s and early 00s. It seems that the blacktails have less, but it may also be that those reporting are more used to seeing the affected animals and may just no be reporting them as they were.
Private Land Access - Brian Caulkins and I talked specifically about the problems of pay-to-play access and requests from the timber people for damage permits, especially for bear damage, but also to keep elk numbers down. I asked if it had been considered to put pressure on the timber companies to allow free access for hunters responding to these damage animals and Brian told me that's been discussed. I also suggested the possibility of an on-line training for hunters performing this service so the land owner would be confident they have been educated about vandalism, litter and dumping, and effective reporting of violations when seen. The purpose would be to assure the owner that their best interests are being followed while the hunter has free access. We could use existing information from programs like the Master Hunter program to put the short on-line thing together. I used the Yacolt Burn Sportsman Club as an example of where training and cooperation with the owners has lead to better understanding and open access for participants. It will be considered. I've worked with Brian personally in the past and do have confidence in his commitment to try and gain increased access for WA hunters. He's an asset for us in the field although his luck with the timber companies over the last couple of years has been dismal. This goes hand-in-hand with declining hunter numbers which is much on their mind. I also spoke with Nicole Brown, Region 5 MH hunt coordinator/landowner liaison about her success in getting more farmers on board with allowing hunters to haze and/or cull critters on their land. Many have expressed concerns of danger to their domestic animals and themselves/families. I asked if in cases such as these crossbows could be used as an effective tool where these concerns are present. It's been considered. I have also dealt with Nicole for some time with regards to the dusky goose/damage season and the Region 5 damage elk MH tag. She's also an asset for us hunters in the field and is working with the individual landowners to use hunters more for conflict resolution.
That's about it. I did speak with Dave Ware briefly about the hesitance of Hunter Educators to begin their own classes as a lead instructor because of what a daunting task it is to put together a class for the first time. I suggested a starter kit with a mentor, giving the new lead instructor the firearms, paperwork, videos, and instructions needed to hit the road running, all in one place. He referred me to Dan Boes, who's handling the SW WA region only now. I will contact him with my idea.
Post by: Bob33 on June 25, 2014, 06:46:40 AM
Post by: bearpaw on June 25, 2014, 08:18:20 AM
Outstanding notes. Thank you.
:yeah:,
Piano, I turned in the list of ideas that I recently gathered regarding youth hunters to WDFW and it was given to Statewide – HE Div. Mgr. Dave Whipple in Olympia to review and respond, I would suggest you also send your comments to him.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 25, 2014, 08:49:09 AM
Post by: bbarnes on June 25, 2014, 03:01:22 PM
Post by: t6 on June 25, 2014, 11:09:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 05:06:48 AM
I wonder if the attendance would have been better if it had been held on a Saturday afternoon? I'm sure many people are interested but not available to attend on a weekday.
They've always had these on weekdays, but unlike commission meetings, they do them after hours so people can attend and they do them in several locations around the state so most won't have to travel much. We could also ask them to come into our homes and bring pizza, but whether that would make a big difference in hunter participation is questionable.
BBarnes, why don't you tell us about the sheep. I don't have any notes on that. Thanks.
Post by: t6 on June 26, 2014, 07:44:44 AM
Pizza? Really?
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 07:57:45 AM
Post by: t6 on June 26, 2014, 09:48:06 AM
It seems that until we are effective in forcing a changing of the guard at WDFW, it may be futile to contribute.
Their publication telling the public that it remains Treptonomes (SP?) causing this when that was clearly not what the Advisory Committe said shows their not listening to anyone.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 09:58:45 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 26, 2014, 10:08:15 AM
The minuscule hunter attendance was indicative not of location and time problems, but of little hunter participation in the future of our hunting laws and game management. At a time when many have such a low opinion and trust of the WDFW, I would think these meetings would be packed. :dunno:It may also reflect that the silent majority generally approves of the job WDFW is doing.
Post by: KFhunter on June 26, 2014, 10:23:10 AM
The minuscule hunter attendance was indicative not of location and time problems, but of little hunter participation in the future of our hunting laws and game management. At a time when many have such a low opinion and trust of the WDFW, I would think these meetings would be packed. :dunno:It may also reflect that the silent majority generally approves of the job WDFW is doing.
You owe me a keyboard, I just spewed coffee all over it.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 26, 2014, 11:33:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 26, 2014, 11:41:01 AM
Post by: rim_runner on June 26, 2014, 11:42:00 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 26, 2014, 11:46:38 AM
do they list times and locations of these meetings on the Fish and Wildlife web site?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/2015/)
Go on there to find the link to do their survey - commenting on each component of the plan, or to find the dates and times of meetings. But, there is only one left, tonight.
June 26 – Olympia, Red Lion Olympia, 2300 Evergreen Park Dr. S.W.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 26, 2014, 12:51:24 PM
These meetings normally give a person only a few minutes to speak. Isn't it better in a way to provide our comments in writing?Good point. I think it is actually best (and easiest) to fully articulate suggestions in writing so they can be accurately evaluated by wdfw...and it maybe requires them to respond, in writing....which eliminates some potential miscommunication :dunno: The meetings are a good way to provide some informal discussion and get general feedback.
Post by: jackelope on June 26, 2014, 01:48:11 PM
You forgot to mention the sheep dying in the blue mountains they talked about.This meeting was a slobbering reminder that hunters are un engaged.The turn out was real bad and I saw no mention of it in the paper.
Domestic sheep? Wild sheep? In the Blues?
More details please?
Post by: Wacenturion on June 28, 2014, 08:31:54 AM
I agree however, Not too many people believe that WDFW is listening anymore. That too may contribute to the lack of participation.
It seems that until we are effective in forcing a changing of the guard at WDFW, it may be futile to contribute.
Definitely a contibuting factor in the lack of participation. Didn't used to be that way many years ago.
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 28, 2014, 09:55:10 AM
With the Internet and the option now available to make our comments online, it's almost like actual meetings with real people are now becoming unnecessary. These meetings normally give a person only a few minutes to speak. Isn't it better in a way to provide our comments in writing? Not that I don't like to see our wildlife management people in person and listen to them talk, but it's difficult for me to take the time to go to these meetings, even if they are in the evenings or on the weekend.
No BC, that's incorrect. The wildlife director goes through the topics in front of the room at the beginning. Stations are all arranged at round table stations and you visit each one and talk with the person in charge of that department regarding your questions. They have sections on predators, elk and deer, OIL type animals (goats, sheep, moose), private landowner liaison, protected species, etc. Whenever possible, someone should both attend the meetings AND fill out the survey online.
Post by: snowpack on June 28, 2014, 10:17:15 AM
Seems like they could replicate what you described electronically. They could get something like HW and youtube and have the designated person from that department monitor it at designated times. They wouldn't have to travel around the state as much...or have others travel around the state to get there. :dunno:With the Internet and the option now available to make our comments online, it's almost like actual meetings with real people are now becoming unnecessary. These meetings normally give a person only a few minutes to speak. Isn't it better in a way to provide our comments in writing? Not that I don't like to see our wildlife management people in person and listen to them talk, but it's difficult for me to take the time to go to these meetings, even if they are in the evenings or on the weekend.
No BC, that's incorrect. The wildlife director goes through the topics in front of the room at the beginning. Stations are all arranged at round table stations and you visit each one and talk with the person in charge of that department regarding your questions. They have sections on predators, elk and deer, OIL type animals (goats, sheep, moose), private landowner liaison, protected species, etc. Whenever possible, someone should both attend the meetings AND fill out the survey online.
Post by: Special T on June 28, 2014, 05:55:38 PM
The minuscule hunter attendance was indicative not of location and time problems, but of little hunter participation in the future of our hunting laws and game management. At a time when many have such a low opinion and trust of the WDFW, I would think these meetings would be packed. :dunno:It may also reflect that the silent majority generally approves of the job WDFW is doing.
If you think the "silent majority" approves of the WDFW you don't get out much, and ignore many of the comments on here. Most I know that don't get involved feel like they are saving their breath by not speaking up. They feel that the WDFW doesn't listen, care, and their actions are proof. Perhaps if there were more sportsmen actually making the decisions they wouldn't need so much input do do what they need to.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 28, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
The director, asst. director, game division manager, and deer/elk manager (and many more) are all hunters...they ask for input not because they are clueless, but because the public owns the wildlife and so it is to hear input on how they would like their wildlife managed.The minuscule hunter attendance was indicative not of location and time problems, but of little hunter participation in the future of our hunting laws and game management. At a time when many have such a low opinion and trust of the WDFW, I would think these meetings would be packed. :dunno:It may also reflect that the silent majority generally approves of the job WDFW is doing.
If you think the "silent majority" approves of the WDFW you don't get out much, and ignore many of the comments on here. Most I know that don't get involved feel like they are saving their breath by not speaking up. They feel that the WDFW doesn't listen, care, and their actions are proof. Perhaps if there were more sportsmen actually making the decisions they wouldn't need so much input do do what they need to.
I still contend that if only a handful of hunters showed up its because they are content with status quo...although, the much easier method of commenting online may also reduce attendance. But if people are really mad about something, you will see and hear them at public meetings. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 28, 2014, 09:57:51 PM
Post by: t6 on June 28, 2014, 10:08:01 PM
This was not a vocal minority...the majority of the room got an opportunity to talk and most echoed the same sentiment....
WDFW has done a CRAP JOB and should be FIRED!
Spin that any way you want. :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 28, 2014, 10:20:18 PM
Idahohunter.....you obviously weren't present at the hoof rot meeting that took place in Longview. I didn't hear much Contentment in the harsh words pointed at the director, Sandra Jonker, or Kristen Mansfield.You just proved my point...low attendance = little public concern. Lots of attendance = public concern.
This was not a vocal minority...the majority of the room got an opportunity to talk and most echoed the same sentiment....
WDFW has done a CRAP JOB and should be FIRED!
Spin that any way you want. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on June 29, 2014, 06:21:26 AM
Idahohunter.....you obviously weren't present at the hoof rot meeting that took place in Longview. I didn't hear much Contentment in the harsh words pointed at the director, Sandra Jonker, or Kristen Mansfield.
This was not a vocal minority...the majority of the room got an opportunity to talk and most echoed the same sentiment....
WDFW has done a CRAP JOB and should be FIRED!
Spin that any way you want. :chuckle:
He's going to parrot the views of the WDFW. Don't even try.
Post by: snowpack on June 29, 2014, 09:37:03 AM
.....Some mostly rely on electronic means. The closest meeting they ever have for me is four hours one way. Can get a lot more done electronically in that time frame. Lots of people are really mad about the ongoing clown circus in DC, but very few people are capable of attending anything there.
I still contend that if only a handful of hunters showed up its because they are content with status quo...although, the much easier method of commenting online may also reduce attendance. But if people are really mad about something, you will see and hear them at public meetings. :twocents: