Post by: jackelope on January 28, 2016, 01:41:49 PM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuploads.tapatalk-cdn.com%2F20160128%2F2fb99344cb85386b1d195a3aeaae9ad1.jpg&hash=18e20acc1d3ada7f658cc3d3addff8605e1d3595)
Post by: carpsniperg2 on January 28, 2016, 01:43:57 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 28, 2016, 01:58:46 PM
Post by: Kit Carson on January 28, 2016, 08:42:56 PM
Post by: bowhunterforever on January 28, 2016, 08:49:16 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2016, 12:45:24 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on January 29, 2016, 04:40:59 AM
Now use some of that money to go kill some cats and wolves near the relocation site!
Post by: trophyhunt on January 29, 2016, 06:49:07 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 29, 2016, 07:20:19 AM
Post by: theleo on January 29, 2016, 07:28:09 AM
Post by: blacktailer on January 29, 2016, 09:30:57 AM
Post by: WAcoueshunter on January 29, 2016, 09:32:23 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2016, 12:20:12 PM
Now use some of that money to go kill some cats and wolves near the relocation site!
That would be counter productive to the $150k just given at the sheep auction, that will be going to protect those cats, wolves and help fund the fisher reintroduction. :twocents:
Post by: Timberstalker on January 29, 2016, 12:23:28 PM
Now use some of that money to go kill some cats and wolves near the relocation site!
That would be counter productive to the $150k just given at the sheep auction, that will be going to protect those cats, wolves and help fund the fisher reintroduction. :twocents:
What a joke. :twocents:
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2016, 12:30:16 PM
Now use some of that money to go kill some cats and wolves near the relocation site!
That would be counter productive to the $150k just given at the sheep auction, that will be going to protect those cats, wolves and help fund the fisher reintroduction. :twocents:
What a joke. :twocents:
Yeah, unfortunately it's not.
Post by: jackelope on January 29, 2016, 12:49:23 PM
I just looked on the Wa WSF website. They paid $10k to move those sheep.
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2016, 12:53:21 PM
Does that money go to WDFW or to the sheep foundation?
I just looked on the Wa WSF website. They paid $10k to move those sheep.
From what I understand, the auction winner pays a extra 5% , which I believe is the foundations portion, the rest goes to WDFW, and is not earmarked to be used solely for sheep.
Post by: ipkus on January 29, 2016, 01:02:39 PM
Post by: ramslam on January 29, 2016, 03:21:57 PM
1. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation purchased 10 GPS collars for ~$11,000 for this transplant.
2. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation paid for the helicopter capture ~$7,000+ for this transplant.
3. WDFW paid for any of the health expenses (any injections, swabs, blood work, lab work, etc)
4. The Wild Sheep Foundation auctioned the state Cali tag for $150,000 last week. WSF gets 10% plus charges an additional "buyer's premium" of 5%...so WDFW would net $135,000 and WSF would net $22,500. WSF is a great partner of ours and we work together a lot--but WSF did not contribute to this transplant nor were they asked to as WA WSF covered it.
5. The RCW was changed in 2010 and WA WSF went down kicking and screaming about dropping the language that protected auction/raffle money for each species for which it was sold (sheep money for sheep and elk money for elk, etc). The legislature did not listen and the RCW changed. HOWEVER, the language we wanted was added to the WAC which is what the department uses as a guideline for how to interpret legislative actions. The WAC related to auction money and this issue is WAC 232-28-292 and on rule 6 it reads, "Revenue from the sale of single-species auction permits shall be used for the management of THAT species and revenue from the sale of multiple-species auction permits shall be used for game management."
6. A similar WAC exists for raffle hunts.
7. Maybe it's time for a PDR to see where the funds are going?!?!?!?!
Post by: Gobble Gobble on January 29, 2016, 04:07:43 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 29, 2016, 08:29:47 PM
Just a couple of noteworthy points of clarification:
1. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation purchased 10 GPS collars for ~$11,000 for this transplant.
2. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation paid for the helicopter capture ~$7,000+ for this transplant.
3. WDFW paid for any of the health expenses (any injections, swabs, blood work, lab work, etc)
4. The Wild Sheep Foundation auctioned the state Cali tag for $150,000 last week. WSF gets 10% plus charges an additional "buyer's premium" of 5%...so WDFW would net $135,000 and WSF would net $22,500. WSF is a great partner of ours and we work together a lot--but WSF did not contribute to this transplant nor were they asked to as WA WSF covered it.
5. The RCW was changed in 2010 and WA WSF went down kicking and screaming about dropping the language that protected auction/raffle money for each species for which it was sold (sheep money for sheep and elk money for elk, etc). The legislature did not listen and the RCW changed. HOWEVER, the language we wanted was added to the WAC which is what the department uses as a guideline for how to interpret legislative actions. The WAC related to auction money and this issue is WAC 232-28-292 and on rule 6 it reads, "Revenue from the sale of single-species auction permits shall be used for the management of THAT species and revenue from the sale of multiple-species auction permits shall be used for game management."
6. A similar WAC exists for raffle hunts.
7. Maybe it's time for a PDR to see where the funds are going?!?!?!?!
That would be fantastic Glen, if the money actually was earmarked for sheep only. :tup:
Post by: iflyils on March 03, 2016, 02:48:52 PM
Post by: Falcon on March 03, 2016, 07:53:24 PM
Just a couple of noteworthy points of clarification:
1. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation purchased 10 GPS collars for ~$11,000 for this transplant.
2. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation paid for the helicopter capture ~$7,000+ for this transplant.
3. WDFW paid for any of the health expenses (any injections, swabs, blood work, lab work, etc)
4. The Wild Sheep Foundation auctioned the state Cali tag for $150,000 last week. WSF gets 10% plus charges an additional "buyer's premium" of 5%...so WDFW would net $135,000 and WSF would net $22,500. WSF is a great partner of ours and we work together a lot--but WSF did not contribute to this transplant nor were they asked to as WA WSF covered it.
5. The RCW was changed in 2010 and WA WSF went down kicking and screaming about dropping the language that protected auction/raffle money for each species for which it was sold (sheep money for sheep and elk money for elk, etc). The legislature did not listen and the RCW changed. HOWEVER, the language we wanted was added to the WAC which is what the department uses as a guideline for how to interpret legislative actions. The WAC related to auction money and this issue is WAC 232-28-292 and on rule 6 it reads, "Revenue from the sale of single-species auction permits shall be used for the management of THAT species and revenue from the sale of multiple-species auction permits shall be used for game management."
6. A similar WAC exists for raffle hunts.
7. Maybe it's time for a PDR to see where the funds are going?!?!?!?!
Glen,
Thanks for the clarification. I am proud to be a life member of the WWSF. Some people talk about what needs to be done. This organization is actually getting things done for the benefit of the species👍
Post by: trophyhunt on March 03, 2016, 08:05:06 PM
X2 :tup:Just a couple of noteworthy points of clarification:
1. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation purchased 10 GPS collars for ~$11,000 for this transplant.
2. The Washington Wild Sheep Foundation paid for the helicopter capture ~$7,000+ for this transplant.
3. WDFW paid for any of the health expenses (any injections, swabs, blood work, lab work, etc)
4. The Wild Sheep Foundation auctioned the state Cali tag for $150,000 last week. WSF gets 10% plus charges an additional "buyer's premium" of 5%...so WDFW would net $135,000 and WSF would net $22,500. WSF is a great partner of ours and we work together a lot--but WSF did not contribute to this transplant nor were they asked to as WA WSF covered it.
5. The RCW was changed in 2010 and WA WSF went down kicking and screaming about dropping the language that protected auction/raffle money for each species for which it was sold (sheep money for sheep and elk money for elk, etc). The legislature did not listen and the RCW changed. HOWEVER, the language we wanted was added to the WAC which is what the department uses as a guideline for how to interpret legislative actions. The WAC related to auction money and this issue is WAC 232-28-292 and on rule 6 it reads, "Revenue from the sale of single-species auction permits shall be used for the management of THAT species and revenue from the sale of multiple-species auction permits shall be used for game management."
6. A similar WAC exists for raffle hunts.
7. Maybe it's time for a PDR to see where the funds are going?!?!?!?!
Glen,
Thanks for the clarification. I am proud to be a life member of the WWSF. Some people talk about what needs to be done. This organization is actually getting things done for the benefit of the species👍
Post by: Maverick on March 03, 2016, 09:53:10 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on March 23, 2016, 10:28:31 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on March 23, 2016, 10:36:30 AM
I spoke with WDFW yesterday and we are getting some more from Montana very soon. :tup::tup:
Post by: KNOPHISH on March 23, 2016, 11:34:43 AM
Post by: Bushcraft on March 23, 2016, 12:24:28 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on March 23, 2016, 08:05:56 PM