Post by: Ridgeratt on December 15, 2016, 04:53:47 PM
By Sen. Kirk Pearson
As chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee, I get a first look at new plans and budgets from the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife. With each new budget year, there are usually many new ideas for how to spend the state’s money on projects or programs that they believe will help us maintain the fishing and hunting opportunities that make Washington such a great state for hunters and fishermen.
This year the Department of Fish and Wildlife is proposing new increases to our fishing and hunting license fees.
SENATOR KIRK PEARSON (WASHINGTON LEGISLATURE)
According to the Department, these costs are expected to help increase production at hatcheries, such as 700,000 coho at Marblemount and Wallace hatcheries, as well as other projects that seek to enhance Washington’s natural resources and maintain the ongoing operations of the department. Many of these are ideas that could be beneficial. However, we need to count the cost before we start writing the checks.
The costs are significant. Overall, recreational and commercial fishing license fees will increase by an average of 30 percent. Recreational licenses for saltwater salmon, freshwater trout, and shellfish license would increase from $55 to $75. Columbia and Snake River salmon and steelhead licenses will go from $38 to more than $64. Saltwater salmon and sturgeon licenses from $30 to $55. An average angler could see fee costs increase by double or triple.
Hunters also will pay for the new spending with fees that will increase by 10 percent on average. A migratory bird permit will go from $15 to $25. A deer, elk, bear and cougar big game hunting license will increase from $85 to $93.
All these increased fee amounts are just for residents. For non-residents, the price increases are much higher, possibly presenting problems to our tourism industry.
This session I will be holding a public hearing on the department’s proposal for increased license fees. Knowing that most of our hunters and fishermen cannot make the trip to Olympia to testify, I would like to know your opinions on the merits of this proposal.
Please send your comments directly to me at Kirk.Pearson@leg.wa.gov or by mail to my Olympia office at PO Box 40439, Olympia, WA 98504. You can find more details about the proposal on my website, www.SenatorKirkPearson.com.
Sen. Kirk Pearson is the chairman of the Senate Natural Resources and Parks Committee and represents the 39th Legislative District. He resides in Monroe.
Copied from another site.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/senator-asking-washington-hunter-angler-input-fee-increases/
Post by: huntnphool on December 15, 2016, 05:03:12 PM
Post by: head hunter on December 15, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 15, 2016, 05:25:05 PM
Post by: Miles on December 15, 2016, 05:27:54 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 15, 2016, 05:44:00 PM
Post by: Pinetar on December 15, 2016, 06:01:04 PM
Screw that, start issuing tickets to all the Subarus parked at trail heads without the required permits/passes, that should more than make up for the difference in revenue if this doesn't go through.
:yeah: You see this all the time, I've seen 6 to 7 all together and no passes.
Post by: Alchase on December 15, 2016, 06:18:13 PM
And are they going to turn those hatcherys over to the tribes to turn them all into pinks in just a couple years like the Carbon/Puyallup system.?
Post by: Special T on December 15, 2016, 06:40:18 PM
Here are a few of my un refined points.
1 Enforcement leadership is horrible and Unworthy has done nothing to resolve it.
2 I am unwillingness pay more for less and no longer fish and have paired back my hunting license permits as a result.
3 The department protects predators.it should be promoting predator hunting.
4 sportsmen came to the aid of the WDFW to prevent a DNR, parks wdfw merger a few years ago. For our support we have had less say it what is going on.
5 no one Trusts the wdfw to keep its word.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 15, 2016, 08:33:06 PM
Post by: cooltimber on December 15, 2016, 08:53:57 PM
Post by: Curly on December 15, 2016, 10:33:43 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 15, 2016, 10:35:35 PM
Special T, was Unworthy a autocorrect or a purposeful misspelled word for unsworth? Doesn't really matter though cuz I like the ring of it.
You really have to ask? :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on December 15, 2016, 11:47:20 PM
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 05:19:23 AM
:chuckle:Special T, was Unworthy a autocorrect or a purposeful misspelled word for unsworth? Doesn't really matter though cuz I like the ring of it.
You really have to ask? :chuckle:
I think wa may be competing with California to see who can charge the most...
Thankfully I'm leaving California, and if wa keeps up with their shenanigans I may have some land for sale in Spokane country.
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2016, 07:04:57 AM
It was auto correct but also kind of funny.
Post by: Henrydog on December 16, 2016, 08:22:18 AM
Sen. Pearson,
It has been published that you are looking for feedback on the proposal to raise hunting and fishing licenses for 2017.
In plain English NO. NO more taxes No more fees. Sportsman are sick and tired of footing the bill for Olympia’s liberal tax and spend agenda. WDFW cannot manage they money they already get, so why throw money at the problem.
My family has lived continuous in this State before it was a State, my son and I fish and hunt nearly 100 days a year, and my disgust has reached its boiling point.
Currently you need a law degree to understand our hunting and fishing regs. Please look at a copy of Montana’s or Idaho’s and then read ours and see what conclusion you draw.
We are already getting fleeced with the Discover Pass. I am paying money to park on public land….Public Land, the citizens own it.
We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit. Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.
Where did the money go for the Columbia River Salmon/Steelhead Endorsement? That’s right the Wild Fish Coalition sued the WDFW and there are no more steelhead hatchery fish.
WDFW Enforcement leadership is a corrupt joke and Unsworth has done nothing to correct it.
The WDFW has allowed wolves to decimate deer and elk herds (I am in Eastern Washington) and does nothing but make excuses for its Liberal agenda.
If I had time I could provide many more reasons, but I have to get back to work so I can pay all your damn TAXES.
I apologize for the tone but enough is enough.
I sincerely wish you a Merry Christmas.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:23:36 AM
As a result of the McCleary decision (education lawsuit that said WA needs to spend billions more on schools) WDFW will be getting less state tax funding in the future.
Post by: Curly on December 16, 2016, 10:42:46 AM
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 10:52:51 AM
License fees make up about 28% of WDFWs budget. The rest consists of state tax funding, federal taxes, grants, etc. WDFW isn't like some states where they don't get any state tax money.
As a result of the McCleary decision (education lawsuit that said WA needs to spend billions more on schools) WDFW will be getting less state tax funding in the future.
So get more resourceful. When my paychecks aren't as big as they normally are, I tighten the belt. I feel a state agency should have to do the same, not pinch us for more money.
Post by: singleshot12 on December 16, 2016, 11:31:24 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 16, 2016, 12:47:38 PM
Thank you for giving the sportsmen of our state a platform from which we can be heard on the issue of the license increases. My bona fides are that I am a WA Master Hunter, Hunter Education Instructor, archer and fisherman, and conservationist with hundreds of volunteer hours working to improve habitat for our wildlife and teaching our residents how to be safe hunters. I'm a veteran, shooting enthusiast, and an NRA range safety officer. I have been hunting and fishing for over 50 years, 23 of those in our great state of Washington.
We had a fee increase 2 years ago and have seen little in return for the added "investment". Here are a few areas of major failure within the department.
1. Wolves, infected with the extremely damaging and contagious parasite echinococcus granulosis, are over-populating our state because the outrageous wolf plan was passed in 2011, a plan which is 50% more aggressive than that of MT, a state which has almost twice as much land and 1/8th our population. Their negative effects on our wild ungulate populations, other canids, and the communities of the NE corner can not be understated. The WDFW and the USFWS withheld important information from the US Congress and our people about the dangers to our wildlife, pets, citizens, and economy in order to push through this plan. Had the truth about disease, dangers, and economic impact been told, it never would have passed muster.
2. The hoof disease epidemic of W. WA was allowed to grow for almost 20 years before the department started to pay attention, a disease which has claimed up to 75% of some herds and is showing no signs of slowing. Respected scientists in the field who have offered their time and expertise for free have been ignored for not supporting the departments own hypothesis. The general public has been under-informed as to the extent of this devastating epidemic and the ongoing and increasing economic impacts on the region's businesses and families which all depend on healthy and abundant herds.
3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.
4. And lastly, the complete failure of WDFW Law Enforcement leadership and WDFW Administration to support the efforts of the wonderful LE men and women working in the field to stop, arrest, and convict poachers is mind boggling (Operation Cody is a must-read book on the failures of the WDFW LE leadership after a magnificent two year sting operation). Cronyism, complacency, grandstanding, unprofessionalism, and an utter lack of cooperation with hard working LE in the field and prosecutors to bring wildlife offenders to justice is rampant. Please refer to the WA State Patrol records on the investigations into the department LE leadership and their findings.
I would support increases more readily had I any confidence that the money would be used efficiently and in the interest of wildlife and the hunters and fishers who have to pay them. I have no such confidence. All of us in the sporting community were hoping to see sweeping changes when Director Unsworth took over the big chair. Instead, what we got were a few token changes in seasons and regulations meant to pacify the discouraged and disgusted ranks of our sporting community. These changes haven't had the desired effect. Hunter numbers here are decreasing far faster than the national average and the lack of confidence by hunters and fishers that the department is working to make wildlife abundant and the outdoor experience better is obvious. I would urge you to withhold authorization for the increases until WDFW LE leadership is completely turned over, the wolves in E. WA are de-listed from protections, and a path to better cooperation from large landholders for public access becomes a priority and is initiated. I'm unsure what needs to be done further about hoof disease and I fear it may be too little, late to help our poor W. WA elk and those who depend on their survival.
Thank you for your consideration of my views, Senator."
PMan
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2016, 01:27:55 PM
- Credibility and trust
- Predator management
- Enforcement management out of control.
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 01:29:38 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 16, 2016, 01:34:11 PM
I pay well over $700 a year for my wife and I to fish and hunt each year and I don't want to see another increase. But I feel that a lot of the things that people are complaining about are out of WDFW's control. WDFW didn't pass the law saying no dogs for cougars or bears, the people of washington did. WDFW didn't want to shut down steelhead hatcheries they got sued and had to. WDFW doesn't make our halibut or salmon seasons they get told what the quota will be and have to manage the people to the quota. We have a unique state that has a lot to offer but we also have a huge amount of people that partake in those activities. We need to stop attacking WDFW and start attacking our senators and get our voice heard. WDFW hands are tied for most of the issues that are being brought up. They have a budge and are trying to find money to pay for it cause they know that the voter passed school levy is gonna take money away from them.
All due respects, but if you think they're doing the best they can with what they have, you're not paying attention.
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2016, 01:35:45 PM
I pay well over $700 a year for my wife and I to fish and hunt each year and I don't want to see another increase. But I feel that a lot of the things that people are complaining about are out of WDFW's control. WDFW didn't pass the law saying no dogs for cougars or bears, the people of washington did. WDFW didn't want to shut down steelhead hatcheries they got sued and had to. WDFW doesn't make our halibut or salmon seasons they get told what the quota will be and have to manage the people to the quota. We have a unique state that has a lot to offer but we also have a huge amount of people that partake in those activities. We need to stop attacking WDFW and start attacking our senators and get our voice heard. WDFW hands are tied for most of the issues that are being brought up. They have a budge and are trying to find money to pay for it cause they know that the voter passed school levy is gonna take money away from them.Much of that is true, which means that WDFW needs to make a greater effort to work with sportsmen in areas they can control. It is WDFW's fault that Mike Cenci is still in charge of Enforcement. They can make the seasons for predators like cougar longer, with fewer restrictions and less expensive tag fees. They can be more responsive to issues raised by hunters.
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 01:38:39 PM
I pay well over $700 a year for my wife and I to fish and hunt each year and I don't want to see another increase. But I feel that a lot of the things that people are complaining about are out of WDFW's control. WDFW didn't pass the law saying no dogs for cougars or bears, the people of washington did. WDFW didn't want to shut down steelhead hatcheries they got sued and had to. WDFW doesn't make our halibut or salmon seasons they get told what the quota will be and have to manage the people to the quota. We have a unique state that has a lot to offer but we also have a huge amount of people that partake in those activities. We need to stop attacking WDFW and start attacking our senators and get our voice heard. WDFW hands are tied for most of the issues that are being brought up. They have a budge and are trying to find money to pay for it cause they know that the voter passed school levy is gonna take money away from them.
All due respects, but if you think they're doing the best they can with what they have, you're not paying attention.
Those words were not typed by me. They are a governement agengy there is always going to be waste. At no time did I say we shouldn't fight the increase. But alot of the hatred towards WDFW is mislead. People think the WDFW has a lot more power then they really do.
Post by: Henrydog on December 16, 2016, 01:45:08 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 01:51:23 PM
I pay well over $700 a year for my wife and I to fish and hunt each year and I don't want to see another increase. But I feel that a lot of the things that people are complaining about are out of WDFW's control. WDFW didn't pass the law saying no dogs for cougars or bears, the people of washington did. WDFW didn't want to shut down steelhead hatcheries they got sued and had to. WDFW doesn't make our halibut or salmon seasons they get told what the quota will be and have to manage the people to the quota. We have a unique state that has a lot to offer but we also have a huge amount of people that partake in those activities. We need to stop attacking WDFW and start attacking our senators and get our voice heard. WDFW hands are tied for most of the issues that are being brought up. They have a budge and are trying to find money to pay for it cause they know that the voter passed school levy is gonna take money away from them.
So why support a increase that has money earmarked for hatcheries when those hatcheries can be closed down with the threat of another law suit?
With so many of these issues being mandated by someone other than WDFW, it appears to me that we could slim down the WDFW itself. Keep the officers and downsize the suits, that should free up the revenue they are looking to find.
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2016, 02:46:14 PM
License fees make up about 28% of WDFWs budget. The rest consists of state tax funding, federal taxes, grants, etc. WDFW isn't like some states where they don't get any state tax money.I knew you would bring up the 28%. That however does not include dingle Johnson or pitman Roberson funds.
As a result of the McCleary decision (education lawsuit that said WA needs to spend billions more on schools) WDFW will be getting less state tax funding in the future.
The simple fact is that as they raise prices they will get less people buying licenses and associated gear. I don't buy fishing gear anymore not lic so what does that get the state?
Raising prices isn't static I can and do buy less because of what the wdfw does. So should others.
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2016, 02:52:34 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 16, 2016, 03:01:12 PM
No, it's not misled. Yes, there are many things outside of their influence and ability to control. We're not talking about those. The department continues to be mismanaged. WDFWLE administration is a shambles and that is directly attributable to continued poor WDFW leadership. WDFW dragged their feet on hoof disease for two decades. That wasn't because they asked for funding for two decades and were refused. It's because they were inactive towards a huge problem with our wildlife. Part of their job is to work with major landowners ongoingly to build and maintain opportunity on those lands for our hunters. When WEYCO went pay-to-play 4 years ago, the WDFW was quoted as having been completely blind-sided by their decision. Not much of a relationship then, really.I pay well over $700 a year for my wife and I to fish and hunt each year and I don't want to see another increase. But I feel that a lot of the things that people are complaining about are out of WDFW's control. WDFW didn't pass the law saying no dogs for cougars or bears, the people of washington did. WDFW didn't want to shut down steelhead hatcheries they got sued and had to. WDFW doesn't make our halibut or salmon seasons they get told what the quota will be and have to manage the people to the quota. We have a unique state that has a lot to offer but we also have a huge amount of people that partake in those activities. We need to stop attacking WDFW and start attacking our senators and get our voice heard. WDFW hands are tied for most of the issues that are being brought up. They have a budge and are trying to find money to pay for it cause they know that the voter passed school levy is gonna take money away from them.
All due respects, but if you think they're doing the best they can with what they have, you're not paying attention.
Those words were not typed by me. They are a governement agengy there is always going to be waste. At no time did I say we shouldn't fight the increase. But alot of the hatred towards WDFW is mislead. People think the WDFW has a lot more power then they really do.
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 03:39:22 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 03:41:59 PM
This States' departments, all of them not just WDFW, are a bloated mess of taxes and red tape. State employees have a piss pour attitude and find any way possible to screw the taxpayer and pass the buck to someone else. All of this when we have to pay more and more for their pensions, bloated benefits, and feel good seminars they attend on MY and YOUR dime. I am sure some state employee will have a poor me story, and that I just don't understand. Olympia needs to burned to the ground.
Wow I don't even know what to say to this. Your first sentence is the only thing even remotely accurate.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 03:50:58 PM
3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.I agree with all of your statements except this one.
Realistically WDFW can do nothing regards to the timberland fees. All WDFW can do is call up Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc. and say "please, please, please!" WDFW has nothing to do with the real estate taxes on timberlands.
Who can change this??? The legislature, but it seems like there isn't much support for this outside of a couple legislators.
Realistically, WDFW is trying to do something on this matter. In the 2017-19 budget request submitted in September WDFW asked for $2.6 million to work on establishing and maintaining public access on private timberlands. Part of WDFW's plan is to approach timber companies and say they will provide for increased WDFW LE coverage in exchange for public access. It will now be up to the legislature to fund this package.....
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 04:32:24 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 04:39:36 PM
3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.I agree with all of your statements except this one.
Realistically WDFW can do nothing regards to the timberland fees. All WDFW can do is call up Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc. and say "please, please, please!" WDFW has nothing to do with the real estate taxes on timberlands.
Who can change this??? The legislature, but it seems like there isn't much support for this outside of a couple legislators.
Realistically, WDFW is trying to do something on this matter. In the 2017-19 budget request submitted in September WDFW asked for $2.6 million to work on establishing and maintaining public access on private timberlands. Part of WDFW's plan is to approach timber companies and say they will provide for increased WDFW LE coverage in exchange for public access. It will now be up to the legislature to fund this package.....
2.6 million to ask for access, and in return offer additional le patrol?
This is the problem...
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 05:07:37 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 05:27:55 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?
What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?
Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 05:36:32 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 05:37:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 05:45:03 PM
Why don't they make the WDFW chief and down to warden a voted position like a sheriff is?Then the sportsman that flip the majority of the bill can have some say in it. :twocents:
What's the difference between that or having the elected governor appoint him? Either way liberal King and Snohomish counties will be deciding who is elected.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 05:48:28 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 05:49:37 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 16, 2016, 05:50:38 PM
3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.I agree with all of your statements except this one.
Realistically WDFW can do nothing regards to the timberland fees. All WDFW can do is call up Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc. and say "please, please, please!" WDFW has nothing to do with the real estate taxes on timberlands.
Who can change this??? The legislature, but it seems like there isn't much support for this outside of a couple legislators.
Realistically, WDFW is trying to do something on this matter. In the 2017-19 budget request submitted in September WDFW asked for $2.6 million to work on establishing and maintaining public access on private timberlands. Part of WDFW's plan is to approach timber companies and say they will provide for increased WDFW LE coverage in exchange for public access. It will now be up to the legislature to fund this package.....
The WDFW is far from impotent regarding our state's relationship with private landowners. We're talking about the difference between a relationship with important partners and legislation. Because the WDFW had no relationship with an important partner in wildlife management and hunting, that partner made substantial changes to how they did business without the WDFW ever knowing what was coming down. This is extremely poor relationships. Had they had better communications, they might have caught wind of the changes and been able to propose alternatives, including volunteerism from MHs or other hunters, to help maintain gates, property, etc. If that proved unfruitful, they could've gone to the legislators to apply pressure on that end. As it is, the hunters of the state lost a valuable resource and the end result is a sum loss for hunter numbers and satisfaction in this state.
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
As it is, the hunters of the state lost a valuable resource and the end result is a sum loss for hunter numbers and satisfaction in this state.3. The refusal of the department to pressure large private timber companies to stop charging outrageous fees to access their land for hunting while these companies pay a fraction in real estate taxes based on tax law passed in the 70's (which assumed they would continue to allow unfettered public access), is a slap in the face to families who've hunted those woods for generations and can ill-afford to pay many hundreds of dollars extra to hunt. Many subsistence hunters are unable to feed their families on wild game because of these fees.I agree with all of your statements except this one.
Realistically WDFW can do nothing regards to the timberland fees. All WDFW can do is call up Weyerhauser, Hancock, etc. and say "please, please, please!" WDFW has nothing to do with the real estate taxes on timberlands.
Who can change this??? The legislature, but it seems like there isn't much support for this outside of a couple legislators.
Realistically, WDFW is trying to do something on this matter. In the 2017-19 budget request submitted in September WDFW asked for $2.6 million to work on establishing and maintaining public access on private timberlands. Part of WDFW's plan is to approach timber companies and say they will provide for increased WDFW LE coverage in exchange for public access. It will now be up to the legislature to fund this package.....
Which I believe has been their agenda from the start. :twocents:
Post by: Band on December 16, 2016, 06:32:42 PM
- Small game hunting
- Bird hunting
- Bear & cougar hunting
- Saltwater fishing & shellfishing
- Fishing in the Columbia & tributaries
- Putting in for special permits (with the exception of elk)
- All activity on public lands that require a Discover Pass
I was very upset when the Puyallup River was closed to all non-natives after I bought my fresh water fishing license, and that may make me quit fishing all together beginning next year as well.
All I have left is deer and elk hunting. If the fees keep going up and opportunity down I'll likely stop doing those as well. I'm sick and tired of paying more for less and I don't like the feeling like I'm playing the lottery just to be an outdoorsman in Washington! >:(
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 06:33:26 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?
What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?
Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?
Hounds and baiting are the most effective forms of predator control. We already have half the year to hunt cougars and they are the biggest issue. We have tons of game just to many people trying to kill it. The handcuffs are current laws, a liberal leaning majority and crazy laws governing native resource allocations. No matter what people may think WDFW has no way to change the fact that we live in a liberal state.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 07:28:15 PM
Pittman-Roberson & Dingle-Johnson funds bring in about $20M a year to WDFW, so about $40M on a 2-year WDFW budget. WDFW's two-year budget is $415.6 million so those two funds make up about 9.5% of WDFW's budget. Add that to the 28% from state licenses and your at about 38%.License fees make up about 28% of WDFWs budget. The rest consists of state tax funding, federal taxes, grants, etc. WDFW isn't like some states where they don't get any state tax money.I knew you would bring up the 28%. That however does not include dingle Johnson or pitman Roberson funds.
As a result of the McCleary decision (education lawsuit that said WA needs to spend billions more on schools) WDFW will be getting less state tax funding in the future.
The simple fact is that as they raise prices they will get less people buying licenses and associated gear. I don't buy fishing gear anymore not lic so what does that get the state?
Raising prices isn't static I can and do buy less because of what the wdfw does. So should others.
So your still looking at 62% of the agency's budget coming from outside of license fees or sportsman related taxes...
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 07:34:32 PM
We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit. Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.Migratory birds are managed at both the state and federal level. That's why every state has their version of a state permit/stamp/validation.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 07:51:26 PM
How many are employed through the WDFW?
Where does all that money go?
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 07:56:35 PM
I guess they need to find a way to save more money.Trim some fat from somewhere.The following shows the allocation WDFW receives from the General Fund (State tax dollars):
How many are employed through the WDFW?
Where does all that money go?
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fabout%2Fbudget%2Fgraphics%2F2015-2017%2Fslide2.jpg&hash=c00530eb52234dd9701d9531f012b9c632ea22b0)
The following shows the allocation WDFW receives from the Wildlife Fund (fishing & hunting license fees):
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fabout%2Fbudget%2Fgraphics%2F2015-2017%2Fslide3.jpg&hash=49a257f50ad4c72ebdbc9de42d93aaa3fa8b2399)
Where does WDFW funds come from???:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fabout%2Fbudget%2Fgraphics%2F2015-2017%2Fslide1.jpg&hash=761c9df06371e7873045fc8d25d3f8c5f28a30bd)
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 08:15:20 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:18:06 PM
So then your probably asking why does WDFW need the increase to the wildlife fund? It's because the amount they get from the General Fund (state taxes) will continue to decrease every year as the WA Supreme Court has said WA needs to spend billions more on education.
Lets look at the difference between the current (2015-17) budget cycle and the 2007-9 budget cycle:
2015-17 General Fund Contribution: $77 Million 19% Overall Wildlife Fund Contribution $117.5 Million 28% Overall
2007-9 General Fund Contribution: $110 Million 31% Overall Wildlife Fund Contribution $63.6 Million 18% Overall
In less than ten years WDFW saw a $33 million decline in general fund funding. As WDFW's overall tax allocation declines the amount they will rely on it's users (hunters and fisherman) will increase. WDFW is slowly going from an overall statewide every citizen funded agency to a user-based agency.
We all remember a few years ago when State Parks lost all general fund funding in one budget, well that's slowly happening to WDFW. Just as State Parks is almost entirely reliant on Discover Pass and camping fees, WDFW will be reliant on it's user base.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:21:14 PM
Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.I also feel that it would be cheaper and more advantageous to all involved if they split the 2 (land and water) into 2 different dept.It used to be that way, but in 1993 voters voted to merge the Dept. of Fisheries with the Dept. of Wildlife, one of the big reasons was to reduce the duplication in operations.
It would actually cost more. You'd have a Regional Director for the Dept of Fisheries and a different Regional Director for the Dept of Wildlife, right now they're one person. Split the agencies and now you need two people.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 08:21:53 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:30:13 PM
wow thanks for all this info.I really didnt think it was going this way.Since your on Bigtex,What do you think of what i said as far as the chief and other higher ups in the WDFW being elected instead of picked by the Gov. ?Totally against it. It would have to be a vote of all the people, the legislature would never allow it to be voted on by just outdoorsman. That means you'd likely end up with a greeny type in charge of WDFW. As far as I know there's not a state in the country where the Fish & Wildlife Director is elected. WA DNR's director is elected and that's an oddity.
As far as the Enforcement Chief being elected I'd be even more against that. You'd likely end up with someone with no natural resource law enforcement experience being Chief. Having spent my career in law enforcement I will say this about Sheriff elections. I have had deputies in counties throughout the state tell me that when their current sherriff is in a tight election that they tell their deputies to make less traffic stops and write less tickets. What does that tell you? If you don't think a Sheriff is a politician then boy do you need to open your eyes. What would a elected Chief of WDFW Enforcement say? Hey lets run less check stations? Less motorized decoys? They don't want to piss off the same people that will be voting for their job....
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 08:34:30 PM
I feel all the states should,especially the states that have opted to give the dept. more authority with non wildlife issues.
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2016, 08:36:55 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?
What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?
Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?
Hounds and baiting are the most effective forms of predator control. We already have half the year to hunt cougars and they are the biggest issue. We have tons of game just to many people trying to kill it. The handcuffs are current laws, a liberal leaning majority and crazy laws governing native resource allocations. No matter what people may think WDFW has no way to change the fact that we live in a liberal state.
Did I say hounds and baiting were not effective?....NO!
If hounds and baiting can no longer be used, then why not extend the seasons to attain the same results as when we could? This is entirely in WDFW's hands!
It's not rocket science, the reason is its because WDFW are achieving exactly what they desire to achieve.
Tons of game, just too many hunters, are you serious? We have 10's of thousands less hunters now than we did in the 80's, and our herds have continued to decline, how can that be?
Crazy laws governing native resource allocation?...LMFAO, You clearly have not been paying attention because our laws do NOTHING regarding natives!
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:46:19 PM
Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.This may surprise you.
WDFWs budget is $415.6 million. WAs population is around 7.062 million (2014). This means WDFW spends about $58.85 per citizen per budget.
Idaho Fish & Game's budget is about $95 million. IDs population is around 1.634 million. This means IDFG spends about $58.13 per citizen per budget.
Now the difference is ID is on a 1 year budget but WA is on a 2 year budget. So realistically WDFW spends about $29.42 per year whereas IDFG spends $58.13 per citizen per year.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 08:46:39 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Don't forget trapping. This state has an infestation of coyotes that will never get under control unless you can bring back legholds and snares. I don't care who you are (and I shoot more than my fair share of coyotes) you will never get predators under control unless you can trap.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 08:51:04 PM
We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit. Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.Migratory birds are managed at both the state and federal level. That's why every state has their version of a state permit/stamp/validation.
Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.
Post by: bb76 on December 16, 2016, 08:53:49 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 08:54:12 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 08:55:05 PM
I figured there had to be one state out there, just hadn't heard of one.Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit. Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.Migratory birds are managed at both the state and federal level. That's why every state has their version of a state permit/stamp/validation.
But North Dakota does have state licenses for early Canada goose which is obviously federal and still requires the federal stamp.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 08:55:12 PM
Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.This may surprise you.
WDFWs budget is $415.6 million. WAs population is around 7.062 million (2014). This means WDFW spends about $58.85 per citizen per budget.
Idaho Fish & Game's budget is about $95 million. IDs population is around 1.634 million. This means IDFG spends about $58.13 per citizen per budget.
Now the difference is ID is on a 1 year budget but WA is on a 2 year budget. So realistically WDFW spends about $29.42 per year whereas IDFG spends $58.13 per citizen per year.
A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 08:57:23 PM
I figured there had to be one state out there, just hadn't heard of one.Wrong, North Dakota does not charge a state migratory bird stamp. All you buy is a federal duck stamp and they have ten times the amount of birds to manage.We have to pay for a state migratory bird permit. Migratory birds are FEDERAL and we pay for Duck Stamps already.Migratory birds are managed at both the state and federal level. That's why every state has their version of a state permit/stamp/validation.
But North Dakota does have state licenses for early Canada goose which is obviously federal and still requires the federal stamp.
Yes that is true. I do feel those are special circumstances due to the large amount of local birds and the damage inflicted. I hate to seem like I'm jumping your s#%$, but the cost here is getting out of control.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 09:10:25 PM
WDFW's budget is on a 2 year cycle. So that's $415.6 million for 2 years not 1.Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.This may surprise you.
WDFWs budget is $415.6 million. WAs population is around 7.062 million (2014). This means WDFW spends about $58.85 per citizen per budget.
Idaho Fish & Game's budget is about $95 million. IDs population is around 1.634 million. This means IDFG spends about $58.13 per citizen per budget.
Now the difference is ID is on a 1 year budget but WA is on a 2 year budget. So realistically WDFW spends about $29.42 per year whereas IDFG spends $58.13 per citizen per year.
A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.
In comparison:
California Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $586 million
Florida Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $234 million
Oregon Fish & Wildlife 2 year 2015-17 budget: $371 million or about $185 million a year
WDFW 2 year budget 2015-17 budget: $415.6 million or about $208 million a year
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 16, 2016, 09:20:30 PM
Aren't Fisheries (saltwater-anadromous fish) much more expensive and take close to 2/3 of the budget? If it did split, would Dept of wildlife/game have a budget that could be more reasonable to be supported by hunters by a bigger percentage?Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.I also feel that it would be cheaper and more advantageous to all involved if they split the 2 (land and water) into 2 different dept.It used to be that way, but in 1993 voters voted to merge the Dept. of Fisheries with the Dept. of Wildlife, one of the big reasons was to reduce the duplication in operations.
It would actually cost more. You'd have a Regional Director for the Dept of Fisheries and a different Regional Director for the Dept of Wildlife, right now they're one person. Split the agencies and now you need two people.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 09:21:28 PM
@post #67
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 09:40:55 PM
WDFW's budget is on a 2 year cycle. So that's $415.6 million for 2 years not 1.Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.This may surprise you.
WDFWs budget is $415.6 million. WAs population is around 7.062 million (2014). This means WDFW spends about $58.85 per citizen per budget.
Idaho Fish & Game's budget is about $95 million. IDs population is around 1.634 million. This means IDFG spends about $58.13 per citizen per budget.
Now the difference is ID is on a 1 year budget but WA is on a 2 year budget. So realistically WDFW spends about $29.42 per year whereas IDFG spends $58.13 per citizen per year.
A quarter a billion a year budget, and the state is still asking for more. That is unacceptable.
In comparison:
California Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $586 million
Florida Fish & Wildlife 1 year 2016 budget: $234 million
Oregon Fish & Wildlife 2 year 2015-17 budget: $371 million or about $185 million a year
WDFW 2 year budget 2015-17 budget: $415.6 million or about $208 million a year
The population of California is 50 million +
The population of Florida is 30 million +
Oregon, I've got nothing, I have no idea how their budget is so big
Washington has a population of what 8 million?? And with 200 million dollars and they still want more?? Come on man, you've got to see the issues. Our yearly budget on 8 million people is almost half of what californias is on 50 million. I love what you guys do but, what happened to being resourceful and working with what you've got. Maybe some higher ups at wdfw should visit with the Marine corps and figure out how they do what they do with a *censored* budget.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 09:46:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 09:51:27 PM
I don't know if "more expensive" is the best phrase. It's not like a fisheries biologist makes $100 an hour and wildlife biologist makes $50. The fishery side is just a bigger program which then pulls in more money. You have fish hatcheries, we don't have elk hatcheries.Aren't Fisheries (saltwater-anadromous fish) much more expensive and take close to 2/3 of the budget? If it did split, would Dept of wildlife/game have a budget that could be more reasonable to be supported by hunters by a bigger percentage?Sorry,I am having difficulties accepting the costs associated with the WDFW.I also feel that it would be cheaper and more advantageous to all involved if they split the 2 (land and water) into 2 different dept.It used to be that way, but in 1993 voters voted to merge the Dept. of Fisheries with the Dept. of Wildlife, one of the big reasons was to reduce the duplication in operations.
It would actually cost more. You'd have a Regional Director for the Dept of Fisheries and a different Regional Director for the Dept of Wildlife, right now they're one person. Split the agencies and now you need two people.
In terms of a split I think it'd be hard to tell. Before the merger DOF was tax funded, fishing license fees went into the general fund. DOW received little to no tax funds and was largely hunter based. DOF was always the better off of the two when it came to funding. DOF had money, DOW was always looking at budget cuts.
I don't think a split will ever happen in this state, especially since the trend in WA and even nationwide is to merge agencies. There's a lot of "Fish, Wildlife & Parks" departments out there. Colorado merged around 2012. We've been fighting a WDFW/DNR/Parks merger for years.
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 09:54:02 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 09:55:13 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 16, 2016, 09:55:27 PM
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 09:58:05 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 10:00:09 PM
I dont think BIGTEX is defending the amount but more showing it to be more in line with other states. :twocents::yeah:
If you know a government worker who says there's no waste in government then they're delusional. Could things at WDFW be better managed? Obviously. Have they lost the publics trust? Obviously. And on and on.
But my point is, when you start looking at other states WA is not outspending the others. Idaho doesn't have to manage the multitude of saltwater species that WDFW does, yet IDFG gets about twice the amount of funding per capita that WDFW gets.
We always hear about the lawsuits impacting the Forest Service and logging. The same thing is continuously happening to WDFW. WDFW and DOT lost a lawsuit a couple years ago to the tribes regarding culverts. WDFW and DOT now has to make every culvert in the state passable to anadramous species. Only going to cost $2.4 billion to fix the 825 culverts across the state. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/state-must-fix-hundreds-of-fish-blocking-culverts/
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 10:01:39 PM
Comparing budgets with other out of control states. The minute I saw California as the first reference, all that followed was lost.You can't compare WA with a state like North Dakota which doesn't have to manage saltwater species. I chose states with similar attributes to WA.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 10:02:52 PM
Bigtex, honest question here so please do not get offended. Are you on the wdfw payroll and performing a sort of damage control here on hw? I know you pour a lot of effort into information research with threads like this. Just wondering the reasoning behind it.This is all my personal time and personal opinion. I have been critical of WDFW many times.
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 10:03:02 PM
Comparing budgets with other out of control states. The minute I saw California as the first reference, all that followed was lost.You can't compare WA with a state like North Dakota which doesn't have to manage saltwater species. I chose states with similar attributes to WA.
Do you have the info on Maine?
Post by: Miles on December 16, 2016, 10:06:43 PM
Bigtex, honest question here so please do not get offended. Are you on the wdfw payroll and performing a sort of damage control here on hw? I know you pour a lot of effort into information research with threads like this. Just wondering the reasoning behind it.This is all my personal time and personal opinion. I have been critical of WDFW many times.
Well thank you for all the information and time you put into stuff like this.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 10:11:05 PM
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 10:18:40 PM
Comparing budgets with other out of control states. The minute I saw California as the first reference, all that followed was lost.You can't compare WA with a state like North Dakota which doesn't have to manage saltwater species. I chose states with similar attributes to WA.
100% spot on. They are not comparable.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 10:19:50 PM
Bigtex, honest question here so please do not get offended. Are you on the wdfw payroll and performing a sort of damage control here on hw? I know you pour a lot of effort into information research with threads like this. Just wondering the reasoning behind it.This is all my personal time and personal opinion. I have been critical of WDFW many times.
Thank you for taking the time to share your information!
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 10:20:16 PM
They have two agencies. Dept of Wildife & Inland Fisheries which got $49 million in 2014-15. Dept. of Marine Resources got $19.5 million. So your looking at about $68 million for two years, or about $51 per capita since they have about 1.33 million people in the state. So not that much less per capita then Washington ($58). Do any Google searches and you'll see that Maine's Wildlife department is constantly having budget problems...Do you have the info on Maine?Comparing budgets with other out of control states. The minute I saw California as the first reference, all that followed was lost.You can't compare WA with a state like North Dakota which doesn't have to manage saltwater species. I chose states with similar attributes to WA.
The most shocking thing is the Dept. of Wildlife & Inland Fisheries spends about 60% of their budget on law enforcement. Maine's game wardens are also the primary search and rescue responders/managers in the state, compared to the sheriff's department in Washington.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 16, 2016, 10:21:19 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 10:25:34 PM
People feel it is mismanaged but when asked to come up with real solutions they come up with ideas that are unfeasible in our Liberal state.
What solutions would you suggest?
I don't feel the WDFW is mismanaged. I would like to see better predator control but until we change the law and allow baiting and dogs that isn't gonna happen. For fishing I would like to see our senators fight the IPHC so that we could get more halibut quota. Get sportsman to come together to try and overturn the Boldt decision. As far as funding their budget I would ultimately like to see the state tighten up the free hand-outs to welfare but that isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Until we as sportsman come together and fight to remove the handcuffs that are placed on WDFW by the laws that are in place then there will be no change.
Hounds and baiting are the only solutions for predator control? Does WDFW have authority to change the seasons and quota's?
What does the Boldt decision have to do with current wolf plan, or our current cougar plan, or hoof rot, or increased late tags, or increased doe tags?
Curious what "handcuffs" you are referring to?
Hounds and baiting are the most effective forms of predator control. We already have half the year to hunt cougars and they are the biggest issue. We have tons of game just to many people trying to kill it. The handcuffs are current laws, a liberal leaning majority and crazy laws governing native resource allocations. No matter what people may think WDFW has no way to change the fact that we live in a liberal state.
Did I say hounds and baiting were not effective?....NO!
If hounds and baiting can no longer be used, then why not extend the seasons to attain the same results as when we could? This is entirely in WDFW's hands!
It's not rocket science, the reason is its because WDFW are achieving exactly what they desire to achieve.
Tons of game, just too many hunters, are you serious? We have 10's of thousands less hunters now than we did in the 80's, and our herds have continued to decline, how can that be?
Crazy laws governing native resource allocation?...LMFAO, You clearly have not been paying attention because our laws do NOTHING regarding natives!
Didn't say you said hounds and baiting was non effective, I simply said it is the most effective. We don't need more time to hunt predators we already have yearlong coyote hunting and nearly 6 months for cougars. WDFW has nothing at all to do with our herds declining ( even though not all herds are declining) urban sprawl and lack of effective predator control has. True laws may have been the wrong word I should have used treaties. Thanks for editing out the insult to me.
Post by: JODakota on December 16, 2016, 10:31:29 PM
Post by: Special T on December 16, 2016, 10:37:04 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on December 16, 2016, 10:40:52 PM
Hounds and baiting are not the most effective tool. Trapping is. Period
Seeing a cougar in a trap would be pretty awesome.
Post by: bigtex on December 16, 2016, 10:56:01 PM
@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen? Are there other states we should emulate ?I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.
Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.
Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.
I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.
When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.
Post by: fireweed on December 17, 2016, 09:38:31 AM
Screw that, start issuing tickets to all the Subarus parked at trail heads without the required permits/passes, that should more than make up for the difference in revenue if this doesn't go through.
A good way to help STATE PARKS, which as a rule, do not allow hunting. Remember WDFW only gets something like 8% of Discover Pass money and fines are fought over too.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 10:02:06 AM
I take it you are advocating we accept paying more because WDFW has no control over the issues important to hunters.@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen? Are there other states we should emulate ?I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.
Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.
Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.
I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.
When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.
Post by: fireweed on December 17, 2016, 10:05:38 AM
Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.
Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle.
Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
Post by: whacker1 on December 17, 2016, 10:09:49 AM
Here is my take so far:
First, hunting, camping, and to some extent fishing opportunities based on Timber companies charging for access is on the decline or the flip side costs are on the rise to the user groups that want to access the land, which is supposed to be covered by tax dollars. So the legislature either needs to address the timber tax issue vs. charging for recreational access, if we are to increase fees. My two cents. The timber companies should NOT be able to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.
Second, if we agree that we are going to pay or agree that we should pay more in the way of increase fees, what can the legislature do in order to help enforcement and prosecution with wildlife infractions to give more teeth to the infractions and hold prosecuters accountable for prosecuting said crimes. How do we get more emphasis on this piece of the puzzle. Pipe dream on my part, perhaps?
Third, Hatcheries are under constant scrutiny as others have mentioned with the debate between native fish and hatchery fish. Environmentalists vs sportsman. What can the legislature do in order to support sportsmen and women
Fourth, How can the legislature play a role in minimizing the impact of commercial gill netting in the rivers?
If the legislature had the ability to tie fee increase to needed changes, then Sportsmen/women probably could get behind a modest fee increase.
But just to increase fees to feed the bureaucracy with no change in the tools or accountability, the answer would be "no". I am hunting out of state more and more for real opportunity and to support the State's philosophically that are capable of making needed change. No state based Fish & Wildlife department is capable of being perfect, but we have so much room for improvement that I have to look at some of these other states as idealistically much better.
There is more to cover, but these are my thoughts as I have been able to put them on paper so far.
My draft letter in email is just that a draft. I would like to send it next week, so I am reading others opinions to help formulate my own opinions.
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:11:29 AM
I'm just saying that in my opinion the only way we (hunters/fisherman) had a bigger role/say in WDFW is if we played a bigger part of the budget.I take it you are advocating we accept paying more because WDFW has no control over the issues important to hunters.@bigtex the biggest gripe I have, and many others, is the fact that wdfw seems less accountable to sportsmen. In your opinion how do we make them more accountable to sportsmen? Are there other states we should emulate ?I think the only way would be if the agency was significantly more user (hunting/fishing license fee) funded, but I think the only way to get there would only mean significant license fee increases.
Like I posted, even with Pittman-Robertson, Dingle, etc. WDFW still gets 68% of their funding from outside sources other than sportsman. The agency has to listen to the entities that give them money. So that means the feds, the county governments, the hunters/fishermen, every taxpayers in WA, etc.
Idaho F&G gets no state general fund (tax) money, yet license fees make up just 40% of their budget. 60% of IDFG comes from outside sources, mainly the federal government.
I think another thing is kind of like what I just posted regarding the lawsuits. Nearly every salmon run in the Puget Sound is protected under the ESA to some extent, and with that comes regulations, restrictions, and expectations. Puget sound steelhead are protected under the ESA. Halibut is federally regulated. Migratory birds are federally regulated. I think a good majority of hunters/fisherman think that WDFW has total control over fish and wildlife in WA, but between the aforementioned federal protections, and to top it working with the "co-managers" WDFW is really restricted, especially on the fishery side. I just had a hunter ask me a couple days ago why WA doesn't have a crane season but other states do and it's BS that WDFW wont let him shoot cranes, I told him well it's a federal matter and not really WDFW.
When the state tries to do something most of us see as "right", someone jumps in with a lawsuit (such as one the one with hatchery steelhead) and screws it up. WDFW increased the cougar quota, well some non-hunters (who happen to fund WDFW with their tax money) sent some letters, Inslee got involved and the commission had to repeal the increased quota.
On the hunting side there isn't a activity-wide group advocating for us like fishermen do with the CCA. The CCA has forced WDFW to do a lot of things and it's because they have a big support base statewide and nationwide. But hunters don't have that. You have 50 different elk, deer, duck groups but no overall hunter advocacy group like fishermen do with CCA.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:12:54 AM
Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes. There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters. Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc.This is inline with what i've been saying,The more anti a state is the higher the cost.It is expensive to close areas from the people that pay for its use in the name of some bs groups agenda.STOP ALL HUNTING AND FISHING FOR ANY REASON.
Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.
Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle.
Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:16:09 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:19:40 AM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:20:55 AM
Semantics,they are all advocating for sportsman period.That cant be argued come on.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 10:21:45 AM
Safari Club advocates for hunting.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:24:11 AM
But it is! There is no one hunter group in WA that advocates for every type of hunter.Semantics,they are all advocating for sportsman period.That cant be argued come on.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Until CCA came to WA it was the same thing for fishing. You had trout, bass, salmon, etc groups. CCA is essentially all of those combined. CCA is really WDFWs biggest policy changer when it comes to recreational and commercial fishing.
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:25:52 AM
I know a lot of hunters who see the Safari Club as a rich guys club. May not be true but I can honestly say I hear that from hunters more than I do "I just joined the safari club"Safari Club advocates for hunting.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Does SCI have a full time lobbyist in Olympia? CCA does. CCA has very close ties with Sen. Pearson as well.
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 10:32:46 AM
I know a lot of hunters that see a lot of things, and I also happen to know a lot of hunters in Safari Club chapters with limited means who are strong advocates of hunting.I know a lot of hunters who see the Safari Club as a rich guys club. May not be true but I can honestly say I hear that from hunters more than I do "I just joined the safari club"Safari Club advocates for hunting.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Does SCI have a full time lobbyist in Olympia? CCA does. CCA has very close ties with Sen. Pearson as well.
SCI chapters do support the Hunter Heritage Council which does have lobbyists in Olympia. Senator Pearson has personally appeared at several Safari Club events that I've attended.
So I guess we just take up basket weaving. WDFW can't do anything, and there are no hunter advocacy groups in Washington that care for all hunters or aren't run by rich folks according to Bigtex.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:37:23 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:37:57 AM
I'm just saying I've seen CCA do a ton of things in the very short time they've been in WA in terms of getting policies and laws changed relating to fisheries. I can't really say that on the hunting side.I know a lot of hunters that see a lot of things, and I also happen to know a lot of hunters in Safari Club chapters with limited means who are strong advocates of hunting.I know a lot of hunters who see the Safari Club as a rich guys club. May not be true but I can honestly say I hear that from hunters more than I do "I just joined the safari club"Safari Club advocates for hunting.Mule deer foundation elk foundation turkey foundation NRA GOA,these are all groups advocating for us.Nobody is listening though.No those are groups that widely focus on one thing. Mule deer foundation advocates for mule deer, Turkey federation for turkeys. There is no overall hunter advocacy group. CCA advocates for every type of fishermen in WA.
Does SCI have a full time lobbyist in Olympia? CCA does. CCA has very close ties with Sen. Pearson as well.
SCI chapters do support the Hunter Heritage Council which does have lobbyists in Olympia. Senator Pearson has personally appeared at several Safari Club events that I've attended.
So I guess we just take up basket weaving. WDFW can't do anything, and there are no hunter advocacy groups in Washington that care for all hunters or aren't run by rich folks according to Bigtex.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:40:56 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:47:00 AM
A lot antis don't see fishing in the same light as hunting,That could be why more is able to be done by them.There is alot more big $ on the fishing side compared to hunting. When CCA advocated WDFW to change the recreational & commercial crab allocation the commercial industry sued WDFW. WDFW either won or the commercials dropped the suit.
CCA pushed WDFW for the change in the gillnet policy on the lower Columbia. The commercials sued WDFW.
When was the last time WDFW was sued over a hunting decision not relating to tribal matters? I honestly can't remember.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:51:52 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 17, 2016, 10:54:49 AM
So we need more lawsuits from the hunting community against the WDFW?The lawsuits occurred because CCA advocated for a bigger share of fisheries for recreational fishermen. Commercials didn't like that, sued and continue to lose.
There is nobody forcing WDFW to make those policy changes on hunting like CCA is doing on fish matters.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 10:59:55 AM
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 17, 2016, 11:40:19 AM
Unfortunately, if anyone has read the Real Wolf, the antis don't win in at the legislative level. The antis haven't got anything through Congress, they win through the unelected bureaucracies, agencies, and Commissions. They killed the increase in the cougar quotas in this state through the governor. Making major policy changes on hunting is much harder than it is on the fishing side. The Hunters Heritage Council was able to get the cougar pilot program through a pretty hostile legislature and renewed once, but the antis threw major money to kill it when that came up for renewal. The antis do see hunting in a different light as they do fishing. Fishing is a much easier sell.
I am I saying everything is roses and sunshine? Hell, no, not even close to it. Hunters have a long way to go before they even see sunshine. Having the state house controlled by the Democrats makes going on the offensive tough, even though we could not have a better friend than Brian Blake as chair of the House Natural Resources Committee. The hunters couldn't have a better friend than Brian. He is truly an awesome guy, but the Seattle liberals control house leadership. Add to the equation a governor that is champion to the antis that will veto a pro-hunting bill. What I am saying is that hunters would be a lot worse off if the Hunters Heritage Council wasn't representing hunters interests in Olympia.
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 17, 2016, 11:53:43 AM
The sportsman of this state need to rally and boycott everything that has a scent of anti to it and i mean truly boycott it.Yes that includes the Seahawks.Hit this state and all the liberals where it counts.
I couldn't agree more with this comment. Who pumped in millions to every anti-gun initiative? Who was the driving force behind the animal-rights initiative 1401? Paul Allen. He is not a friend of the sporting community.
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 17, 2016, 12:53:46 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 01:26:55 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 01:39:24 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 17, 2016, 05:40:02 PM
I agree 100%.Only thing is that by definition support means money,Money that most of us don't have.Money leads to corruption so what group will accept me for who and what i am at that without holding the hand out for my much needed paycheck?What group will fight with me along side them for little to no money to join their group?
Not everyone can afford to be part of a hunting group, I understand that. Life comes first. Survival comes first. No one can fault anyone for not paying when the dollars aren't there. Here is where hunting groups do fall down, they need to communicate calls to action better. Your post is perfect. No everyone can afford to join, so groups need to communicate to better to the hunting community at large on how to activate the base. This thread is an excellent threat. Senator Pearson is an outstanding friend to the hunting community and he needs to hear our voice.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 06:01:26 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 06:11:37 PM
There is also quite a bit that can be done to support these organizations as a free volunteer.
At a minimum, simply voicing support for them versus picking them apart for some minor issue is usually helpful.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 06:13:38 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 06:19:02 PM
25 - 50 no problem,who are they and what have they done so far?Washington Wild Sheep, RMEF, Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, Mule Deer Foundation, Safari Club and others all have membership fees in that range. Pick one for a specie you hunt. As a side note I've attended events from several of these and have gained information, and made contacts and friends that are of great value to me.
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 06:29:47 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on December 17, 2016, 06:30:45 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 06:38:37 PM
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 17, 2016, 06:51:22 PM
These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.
The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect. What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct. While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does. All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia. So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.
I have to stress the lobbyist part. As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist. Very important. We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist. If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages? Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige. Grassroots involvement adds to our influence.
I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years. I have been a successful campaign manager several times. I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC. I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention. This stuff is in my blood. I bleed working for hunters' rights. I live it and love it. It is my passion. There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights. I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope. The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster. I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us. I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior. I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also. I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.
I see positive things on the legislative side side also. We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters. That is positive. The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause. That is positive. I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.
This forum is a great format for us to spread the word. We don't need to attack each other. The antis do that well enough. On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy.
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 08:11:13 AM
Thanks for the great insight. To your point about the Dept of Interior at the federal level, it's fantastic to know that our new President has a concern for hunters and is acting on it:These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.
The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect. What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct. While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does. All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia. So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.
I have to stress the lobbyist part. As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist. Very important. We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist. If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages? Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige. Grassroots involvement adds to our influence.
I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years. I have been a successful campaign manager several times. I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC. I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention. This stuff is in my blood. I bleed working for hunters' rights. I live it and love it. It is my passion. There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights. I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope. The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster. I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us. I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior. I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also. I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.
I see positive things on the legislative side side also. We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters. That is positive. The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause. That is positive. I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.
This forum is a great format for us to spread the word. We don't need to attack each other. The antis do that well enough. On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy.
Morris Rodgers: I was never offered the Interior job
FRIDAY, DEC. 16, 2016, 6:03 P.M.
By Jim Camden
jimc@spokesman.com
(360) 664-2598
As news organizations around the country proclaimed Cathy McMorris Rodgers a sure bet to be the next interior secretary and politicians in her Eastern Washington district quickly announced campaigns for her congressional seat, the person most in the dark was McMorris Rodgers herself.
In her first extended remarks on the events of the last few weeks, the congresswoman said she never got a call from President-elect Donald Trump or his transition team saying she was going to be offered the Cabinet position before or after reports from unnamed sources said she was the likely pick. She also never got a call several days later that Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana was nominated for the job.
“My colleagues were coming up and congratulating me on the floor” of the House when the first reports surfaced, McMorris Rodgers said Friday. “I said, ‘There has not been an offer.’ ”
The Eastern Washington Republican met with Trump, first in New Jersey before Thanksgiving after receiving a call from Mike Pence, the vice president-elect and chairman of the Trump transition team. She was named a vice-chairwoman of the team, and met with him again in Trump Tower in New York City this month.
That spot on the transition team didn’t give her any special insight into who would be nominated for interior secretary.
In neither conversation did Trump offer her the job of interior secretary and the discussions were much broader, she said. They talked about issues the department handles, including better management, expanding access for uses like recreation and hunting, and opening up more partnerships with states and the tribes.
“He wanted to know what steps we could be taking,” she said. “He’s very interested in more access on federal lands.”
But they also talked about other subjects, like jobs and the economy. “When you spend time with the president-elect, it is rapid fire,” McMorris Rodgers said.
So when national news organizations started quoting unnamed sources with the transition team late last week that she was the leading candidate for the Cabinet post, McMorris Rodgers said it was completely unexpected. She and her staff refused to comment when reporters from around the country called because “we didn’t have any news.”
That continued into this week when the name of Zinke, a one-term congressman from Montana, surfaced – again based on unnamed sources – and later was officially confirmed as Trump’s pick.
Asked if she thought that was an odd way to handle the transition, McMorris Rodgers replied: “It’s up to the president-elect as to how he will do this.”
A Wall Street Journal report on Friday quoted unnamed “people familiar with the pick” as saying Donald Trump Jr. influenced his father’s choice of interior secretary because Zinke and the younger Trump are avid hunters, and sportsmen’s groups preferred the Montana congressman over McMorris Rodgers. There were also concerns, the newspaper’s sources said, of her support for a 2011 bill that called for selling off surplus federal lands in 10 Western states.
Zinke and McMorris Rodgers both met with Trump on Monday, and Journal sources also said the president-elect asked the congresswoman to address some of her past criticisms of him.
In her meeting with Trump and his son, “Mr. Trump cited a ‘long list’ of things the congresswoman had criticized him for and asked her to address them, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting,” the Journal reported. “Ms. McMorris Rodgers didn’t walk back her comments.”
McMorris Rodgers was not an early supporter of Trump; she did vote for him in the state’s presidential primary, after he was all but assured of the nomination, but said she wasn’t enthusiastic about it. After a tape of Trump making lewd comments about women surfaced in the fall, she condemned the remarks but said she still supported his candidacy.
“I made it clear that I supported him throughout the campaign and that I continue to support him,” she said Friday. “When candidate Donald Trump said things that I didn’t necessarily agree with, I would call him on it.”
That will continue, she said. Asked if Trump agreed with that, she replied: “I’m not sure I can speculate on that.”
The selection of a new Cabinet is proceeding “under budget and ahead of schedule,” but it is taking place in a much more public fashion than previous changes in administrations, she said.
“It’s playing out in real time,” she said, and reflects Trump’s fondness for digital media. But that also provides extra transparency when decisions are made, she added. “I think it says he is shaking things up. He’s doing things in a new way and I think that’s why he was elected.”
It also means that rumors of an appointment get quickly reported. Some House colleagues began angling for her GOP leadership position and three Republicans and one Democrat in Spokane announced plans to run for her not-yet vacant congressional seat. Asked about the rush to replace her, McMorris Rodgers laughed and said: “It’s great that there’s such a strong bench.”
She added she’s concentrating on working with Trump on issues as a member of Congress.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/dec/16/rep-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-i-was-never-offered-the/
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2016, 09:04:16 AM
Most conservation organizations have annual membership fees in the $25 to $50 range.Imo the big understated mission of conservation organizations is NOT to get involved in hunting issues. I used to belong to DU and it appears that I Need to look at SCI or some other ORG that purely represents hunting.
There is also quite a bit that can be done to support these organizations as a free volunteer.
At a minimum, simply voicing support for them versus picking them apart for some minor issue is usually helpful.
If you read up on CCA and payed attention to BigTex comments what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together.
These are the groups i was talking about a few posts ago and was told they dont advocate for hunting lol. ok .I wonder why there is no one group covers all and these groups back that group.I wonder if HW would be interested in accepting 25-50 from members on here and get the leo and lawyers and such that are members here and start the advocating for us hunters from here.
The information that was posted that these groups don't advocate for hunting is incorrect. What was was also posted is that SCI doesn't have a lobbyist in Olympia, and that isn't correct. While SCI doesn't have directly employ a lobbyist, the Hunters Heritage Council does. All the SCI chapters are member organizations of of the Hunters Heritage Council, which does employ a full-time lobbyist in Olympia. So by being members of HHC, SCI does have access to a hunting lobbyist.
I have to stress the lobbyist part. As was pointed out CCA has a lobbyist. Very important. We can all do our part, the the most important factor in political power is having a lobbyist. If it could be done without a lobbyist, why would these tech savvy companies like Microsoft or Google just depend on their techies to lobby legislators and bombard them with messages? Having a lobbyist is the cornerstone to political success, but hunter involvement adds to our success, power, and prestige. Grassroots involvement adds to our influence.
I have been involved in the political process for 40+ years. I have been a successful campaign manager several times. I have worked in both Olympia and Washington DC. I have been a national convention delegate four times to the Republican National Convention. This stuff is in my blood. I bleed working for hunters' rights. I live it and love it. It is my passion. There is nothing I have enjoyed more in my life than working for hunters' rights. I give this this background detail not to brag on myself, but for the first time in a long time I feel hope. The Department of the Interior under George W. Bush was not friendly, and under Obama it was a disaster. I believe that we have have great opportunity facing us. I believe there will be positive changes in the Department of Interior. I believe that this will go down to US Fish and Wildlife Services also. I believe that we will see positive changes in predator management.
I see positive things on the legislative side side also. We have a state senate natural resources chair that is reaching out to hunters. That is positive. The Majority Coalition Caucus in the state senate is friendly to our cause. That is positive. I believe the the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress will be friendly to us as hunters and we don't have to worry about a presidential veto.
This forum is a great format for us to spread the word. We don't need to attack each other. The antis do that well enough. On some issues we can agree to disagree, but our focus has to always be on hunting advocacy.
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 09:30:01 AM
.. what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together.It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.
None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
Agreed. It's just like how at times the different weapon type groups argue. Archery guys want more days then rifle, muzzleloader want more than archery, etc. The previous was just an example, it doesn't do anything other than break us hunters apart... what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together.It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.
None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.
Post by: NWWA Hunter on December 18, 2016, 09:48:25 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 18, 2016, 10:04:00 AM
Post by: JLS on December 18, 2016, 11:24:53 AM
It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management, even if that science doesn't always jive with what we our biases want us to believe. At times, science based foundations may contradict other science, and we should always be pushing for open minded research to sort out the BS from the reality.
2) Maximizing opportunity so long as it isn't damaging to the resource.
3) Continued PR and educational campaigns for those folks who don't dislike hunting, but also don't understand what Teddy Roosevelt environmentalism is.
4) Seeking out ways to expand public access to hunting whenever and wherever possible.
Post by: huntnphool on December 18, 2016, 11:54:44 AM
It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. :twocents:
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 18, 2016, 12:10:26 PM
The antis have used the federal bureaucracy to kill us. With the new administration being hunter friendly, we can really make some positive changes. Unelected bureaucrats can pass new regulations in seconds without congressional approval. We can now roll back some of these bad regulations of the Bush and Obama Administrations. Both of Trump's sons are avid hunters. If you read what Trump said in the Sportsmen's Alliance magazine before the 2016 elections, he is with us 100%. He understands the ESA needs to be amended. In my opinion, Trump may be the most pro-hunting President since Theodore Roosevelt. As I said, for the first time in a long time, I have hope.
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 18, 2016, 12:15:18 PM
A large part of the reason our voice is smaller is that we do not stick together. Bow is better than rifle. Traditional bow is better than these new age bows. I will never pay private trespass and only hunt public. Guided vs unguided. Trophy hunting vs i see its eyes it dies. Native vs non native. Hunters with money and hunters without. Huge scoring trophies vs a trophy in the eye of the beholder. I constantly see posts where the person says "It is not the biggest but....". As if their trophy is not important. We all have the same goals. TO ENJOY THE OUTDOORS IN OUR OWN LEGAL WAY. The anti's send letters, join groups and put money forth. If I ask a friend for $20 to get a free magazine and $25 knife so DU, SCI, RMEF etc can have their name on their registrar they balk at the cost. These names on paper give our hunters power. This is how you combat the antis. The antis who don't have money to contribute contribute time for rallies and protests. Yet we as hunters don't. We complain, complain, complain. I know all our conservation groups have faults. BUT, what is better. Supporting a group with faults and banding together or loosing it all. In this state if we do not come together we will loose it all. I GUARANTEE that hunting will become a rich mans sport in 50 years if we do not stick together. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE support one or all groups with our time and $. $5 each from 150000 sportsmen in this state goes a long way.
Great post. Very well said. Here is a great article from Ace Luciano Outdoors
Quote
Why Hunters and the Hunting Industry Should Worry
By Ace Luciano
Hunters and the Hunting Industry should be worried… Really, really worried.
We, as an industry, are in a state of decline that, while there are some things to be excited about, there are many more reasons for concern.
My grandchildren may not hunt. Not because they won’t desire to or be “against” it (although that is of increasing concern), but because we, as hunters can’t seem to “get our act together” and stop fighting.
Concern Number 1: HOLLYWOOD AND MONEY
Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio et.al held a fundraiser for endangered tigers.
Nobody argues that tigers are endangered and that there is a need for their preservation. Also, nobody argues that raising money to help save tigers is bad.
What’s concerning is how and how much money was raised. $25 MILLION in one evening. That’s right.
More than most groups on the hunting side raise in YEARS. What happens when they decide to go after Elephant Hunting? Lion? Mountain Lion?
What happens when they pool their funds to buy huge swaths of land here and abroad, or lobby against hunting? If you thing the closure of hunting in Botswana and Zambia had nothing to do with money, you need to wake up. Africa and its various corrupt governments are easily bought for what most would consider paltry sums. Then the government thugs in power have free reign to poach and sell the animals that remain.
They will happily take Leo’s money, and then take the poacher’s money as well… and remember, there has been NO LEGAL TROPHY HUNTING IN KENYA SINCE THE 70′s…
Concern Number 2: ANTI HUNTER MOBILIZATION
Recently, as part of a little “social experiment,” I published an article with a very “Attention-Drawing” headline: “Hi, My Name is Ace, And I Kill Animals.”
What was the experiment? I wanted to prove that anti-hunters, while passionate about their cause, would largely ignore me because, after all, I was a white, Christian male that hunted and not a young, attractive female. While I was 100% correct, there were several things I noticed that are of “concern.” I actually had to go after some of the groups with some “strategic” posts and messages before they “found” me, and find me they did. For the most part, these people are ignorant, rude, crude, vulgar, and quite violent in nature for a group that professes to be so “compassionate” about animals. I was threatened, called vile names (it appears that there is quite a fondness “across the pond” for the pejorative term for female genitalia) and ridiculed on my Facebook page. One said he wanted to “fight me” (a very amusing thought, as it came from a 130 lb. pot and paraphernalia store owner…people- we can see WHO YOU ARE, REMEMBER???) It was also very good for my post reach and rankings.
However… The coordination and absolute unification in their message and drive to end all hunting should be of concern.
Concern Number 3: HUNTER VS. HUNTER
It is looking more and more like I will not hunt a lion or elephant in my lifetime. Regardless of what you think, that in and of itself is a disappointment to me. I was fortunate to sit in on a press meeting that addressed the violent attacks on several outdoor personalities as well as the loss of television show venues and sponsors. Everything that was said in that meeting was true, and it was appalling at some of the treatment that these people received.
Even more appalling was the LACK OF SUPPORT THEY RECEIVED FROM OUR SIDE.
What do I mean? Here are some quotes from discussions that I found:
From a waterfowl forum- “I hunt, but I would never shoot a lion or an elephant. Shame on them for doing that. ” From Facebook- “I’m a ‘meat hunter’ and believe that you should eat everything that you harvest. People that go to Africa and just kill a bunch of stuff to prove their manhood disgust me.” “She’s not a ‘Hunter’ anyway- just a spoiled rich girl that daddy sent on some expensive trip.” – From a LinkedIn Group.
This should concern all of us. You know what? I’m happy that girl’s father is so successful that he can spend $150K on hunting for his daughter. Success should be celebrated, not castigated. Think how many jobs his money provides. Think how many people were FED as a result of that safari! I say GOOD FOR THEM.
…But I am in the minority, and that’s a BIG PROBLEM. While we fight, argue and spit at one another about baiting, leases, bow vs. gun, trapping, hunting with dogs, hunting in enclosures, trophy vs. meat hunting, television celebrities, women, etc., the “other side” is ABSOLUTELY UNIFIED in their ONE MISSION…
…To STOP ALL HUNTING.
and if you’re NOT worried, you SHOULD be.
Post by: JLS on December 18, 2016, 12:24:04 PM
It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. :twocents:
Yes, science CAN be dictated by agenda, which equates to BS science. Contradicting data is much like exculpatory evidence in a criminal trial. It can be ignored if you are simply trying to confirm your bias. However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS.
I think Wielgus' research has some valid points, but it is being applied as if it were in a vacuum with no other external influences or considerations. Certainly there are, and an open minded approach could probably yield some sound policy IF his research was melded with research being done in Montana.
My major professor in grad school was very emphatic that you aren't just looking for data to support your hypothesis IF you really want to find the answers.
Post by: olyguy79 on December 18, 2016, 02:37:31 PM
Yes CCA has a lobbyist in Olympia. Yes Hunters Heritage Council has a lobbyist in Olympia. For a long time the HHC lobbyist was Ed Owens, it is now Tom Echols who basically took on Ed's caseload.
I have worked with both organizations. The difference I see between the fishing CCA group and the hunting HHC group is the following:
HHC is great at getting bills stopped, or supporting bills.
CCA is great at stopping bills, supporting bills, but also creating new policies for WDFW and getting them approved by either the Fish and Wildlife Commission or the legislature. I can point to certain fishery management changes and say that this decision/policy is because of CCA. There are great things that did happen to WA fisheries because of CCA and only because of CCA.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for HHC. HHC represents approximately 11 groups but 6 of those are SCI chapters.
So I agree with both bigtex and hunter4life on the issues here. But I do think if we want to see change and not just prevention of bad things hunters need a CCA type group.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: RB on December 18, 2016, 03:08:07 PM
Agreed. It's just like how at times the different weapon type groups argue. Archery guys want more days then rifle, muzzleloader want more than archery, etc. The previous was just an example, it doesn't do anything other than break us hunters apart... what hunting needs is an organisational element to bring the different factions together.It's sadly evident to me that bringing the different factions together isn't likely to happen. Start a thread about any hunting/firearms/conservation organization, and you'll get a slew of comments about why they're not an organization that hunters should support. RMEF, Safari Club, NRA, Ducks Unlimited, WA WSF, BHA - pick any one, start a thread, and watch the mud fly.
None of them are without fault. I think the best you can hope for is to support as many of them as you feel comfortable with and do your best to reserve judgement on the others. Together, a lot of good for hunters is being accomplished.
:yeah:
To all three of these statements!! :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on December 18, 2016, 03:30:51 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 18, 2016, 04:00:09 PM
Post by: Special T on December 18, 2016, 04:44:30 PM
Longtime follower here, first time poster. Brief intro on me. I have spent 25 years in Olympia working for two republican senators throughout the years. The things I will post are MY views but are very in line with the senators I have worked for.Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. Your another person that can bring great organisational insight to the hunting community. Please don't disapear into the background.
Yes CCA has a lobbyist in Olympia. Yes Hunters Heritage Council has a lobbyist in Olympia. For a long time the HHC lobbyist was Ed Owens, it is now Tom Echols who basically took on Ed's caseload.
I have worked with both organizations. The difference I see between the fishing CCA group and the hunting HHC group is the following:
HHC is great at getting bills stopped, or supporting bills.
CCA is great at stopping bills, supporting bills, but also creating new policies for WDFW and getting them approved by either the Fish and Wildlife Commission or the legislature. I can point to certain fishery management changes and say that this decision/policy is because of CCA. There are great things that did happen to WA fisheries because of CCA and only because of CCA.
Unfortunately I cannot say the same for HHC. HHC represents approximately 11 groups but 6 of those are SCI chapters.
So I agree with both bigtex and hunter4life on the issues here. But I do think if we want to see change and not just prevention of bad things hunters need a CCA type group.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: olyguy79 on December 18, 2016, 06:59:02 PM
Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes. There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters. Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc.You bring up good points and I'll try to explain what a legislative response would be.
Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.
Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle.
Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
In regards to the non-game species, WDFW is not the Dept of Fishing and Hunting, they are the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Are some license fee money's being spent on non-game species, obviously. But your neighbors for decades had their tax dollars pay for things like farm raised pheasants being released so hunters could hunt them, enforcement officers enforcing regulations, biologists, etc. A large majority of non-hunters could care less if you have a pheasant to shoot or if the guy just took a elk out of season, but they're tax dollars paid for it. Now that we are seeing the extreme shift from WDFW being a tax funded agency to a user funded agency we are seeing hunters complain, I don't remember the non-hunters complaining that their tax money is being spent so Bob could shoot a rooster. The agency is mandated to manage ALL wildlife, just not the ones we like to hunt.
Endangered species. WDFW is required to work with the Feds is managing these species. If WDFW starts to stall it opens them wide up to a lawsuit from the environmentalists and I guarantee you WDFW will lose and end up spending more than had they just managed it in the first place.
Bigtex is 100% correct when it comes to the budget. General fund money is being siphoned away from all agencies since the Court ruled WA is underfunding education by billions. WDFW will have to rely more on its license holders to pay for the dept. Unfortunately I think the election will make things worse. I'm a Trump supporter but I would expect the amount of federal money coming to states for natural resource issues will decline. I don't see this directly as a result of Trump but rather the congressional leadership. If this Happens WDFW will again need more help from its users.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Gobble Doc on December 18, 2016, 07:48:46 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 18, 2016, 07:54:55 PM
Too bad we don't have stiffer penalties for our limited tax dollars when we do catch people abusing the system. I believe there is very little deterrence factor for intentional poachers.There are stiff penalties. They just aren't handed down. A $5,000 criminal fine, $2,000 civil fine, and 364 days in jail for poaching a doe seems stiff to me, problem is judges and prosecutors don't hand down sentences near this.
Post by: Gobble Doc on December 18, 2016, 08:00:16 PM
Post by: Gobble Doc on December 19, 2016, 09:34:30 AM
We all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..
I'm intrigued. Can you expound?
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2016, 09:54:53 AM
However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS.It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. :twocents:
There are no "open minds" on the left, EVERYTHING is agenda driven.....observed data/facts be damned!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2016, 05:49:17 PM
WDFW commissioner is employed by CNW.We all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..
I'm intrigued. Can you expound?
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2016, 05:52:20 PM
There's also a Commissioner employed by the commercial fishing fleet. And people wonder why change is difficult...WDFW commissioner is employed by CNW.We all know that CONSERVATION NORTHWEST controls every step of the WDFW..I'm intrigued. Can you expound?
Post by: JLS on December 19, 2016, 10:33:35 PM
However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS.It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. :twocents:
There are no "open minds" on the left, EVERYTHING is agenda driven.....observed data/facts be damned!
A statement like that certainly doesn't indicate an open mind on your part, now does it?
Post by: huntnphool on December 19, 2016, 11:42:18 PM
However, if you have an open mind and are willing to accept what the observed data/facts are pointing to, you CAN sort through the BS.It's a lot easier to unify those who are opposed to hunting, than those who aren't.
This is so true Bob. It's easy to have a loud political voice when your message is unified into one consolidated goal.
I admittedly don't know much about the HHC, and will do some research into it. It's worth noting though, that some of us on this board (myself included) support groups that have opposing goals to other groups supported by board members. An example of this is BHA and the Blue Ribbon Coalition. Some opposing beliefs will be difficult to reconcile, but it is possible so long as people maintain open minds and open dialogue.
I firmly believe that we all should be pressing for several things;
1) A sound, science based approach to wildlife management.
Agreed, however the issue is "science" is often dictated by agenda, with results ultimately leaning toward the "opinions" of those funding the studies. :twocents:
There are no "open minds" on the left, EVERYTHING is agenda driven.....observed data/facts be damned!
A statement like that certainly doesn't indicate an open mind on your part, now does it?
It's all a matter of opinion, the first time I see a example of the anti hunting, anti baiting, anti hound, anti hatchery, anti gun, pro wolf crowd exhibiting open minds I'll be the first to let you know. ;)
Post by: csaaphill on December 20, 2016, 04:13:43 AM
I see a lot of issues at hand though and all make very good points. Seems like there's no easy answers and that's too bad. I do hope our voice is heard on this and not just ignored. So if your against raises in fees use the link and write the guy :tup:
And FYI Oregon's population is near 5 million. 4. something or other but close to 5 Million.
Post by: bigtex on December 20, 2016, 09:01:06 PM
:yeah:Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes. There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters. Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc.You bring up good points and I'll try to explain what a legislative response would be.
Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.
Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle.
Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
In regards to the non-game species, WDFW is not the Dept of Fishing and Hunting, they are the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Are some license fee money's being spent on non-game species, obviously. But your neighbors for decades had their tax dollars pay for things like farm raised pheasants being released so hunters could hunt them, enforcement officers enforcing regulations, biologists, etc. A large majority of non-hunters could care less if you have a pheasant to shoot or if the guy just took a elk out of season, but they're tax dollars paid for it. Now that we are seeing the extreme shift from WDFW being a tax funded agency to a user funded agency we are seeing hunters complain, I don't remember the non-hunters complaining that their tax money is being spent so Bob could shoot a rooster. The agency is mandated to manage ALL wildlife, just not the ones we like to hunt.
Endangered species. WDFW is required to work with the Feds is managing these species. If WDFW starts to stall it opens them wide up to a lawsuit from the environmentalists and I guarantee you WDFW will lose and end up spending more than had they just managed it in the first place.
Bigtex is 100% correct when it comes to the budget. General fund money is being siphoned away from all agencies since the Court ruled WA is underfunding education by billions. WDFW will have to rely more on its license holders to pay for the dept. Unfortunately I think the election will make things worse. I'm a Trump supporter but I would expect the amount of federal money coming to states for natural resource issues will decline. I don't see this directly as a result of Trump but rather the congressional leadership. If this Happens WDFW will again need more help from its users.
People don't understand how much federal $ state fish and wildlife agencies get. WDFW gets $117 million from the Wildlife Fund mainly thru license fees, they get $114 million from the federal government. Each state gets a ton of federal cash and it's more than just Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson. The coastal states get more than the inland states simply because of the federal fisheries issues.
Federal dollars to state agencies are already decreasing, and I agree with Olyguy that it will probably decline even more with the incoming congress. Trump is a resource supporter, the incoming Sec. of Interior is big on hunting/fishing/public lands but the problem is the people who write and approve the actual budget (Congress) are not. The Chair of the House Natural Resource Committee, Rob Bishop of Utah, is a foe of natural resource agencies. He is one of the leading congressmen in the movement of transferring federal lands to state or private entities, he tried to kill the Land & Water Conservation Fund which is how state and federal agencies can buy lands for fish, wildlife, and habitat projects, and I could go on. So you couple decreasing federal dollars with decreasing state tax dollars it doesn't look good for WDFW.
Post by: Hunter4Life on December 20, 2016, 11:52:54 PM
:yeah:Everyone should peruse the "weakly wildlife report" and see where the money goes. There's an awful lot on there about Non-game species especially endangered or rare species management that has no benefit (and in some cases like wolves) or even a negative impact on hunters. Bats, turtles, snowy plover, Columbia White-tailed deer, pygmy rabbits etc.You bring up good points and I'll try to explain what a legislative response would be.
Endangered species management should is a general fund obligation, period. Funds from hunters should not be siphoned off for endangered species management.
Another big cost is planning--which is multi-faceted and continuous. Each state grant requires a plan that must be updated and there are layers upon layers of plans. They pile up on shelves and in many cases no real implementation before the next state or federal required planning cycle.
Just one example is the Mount St. Helens wildlife area that has had a "plan" for legal public access from the beginning of ownership, but has no legal public access today after many, many planning cycles. Take that planning money and put it on the ground.
In regards to the non-game species, WDFW is not the Dept of Fishing and Hunting, they are the Dept of Fish and Wildlife. Are some license fee money's being spent on non-game species, obviously. But your neighbors for decades had their tax dollars pay for things like farm raised pheasants being released so hunters could hunt them, enforcement officers enforcing regulations, biologists, etc. A large majority of non-hunters could care less if you have a pheasant to shoot or if the guy just took a elk out of season, but they're tax dollars paid for it. Now that we are seeing the extreme shift from WDFW being a tax funded agency to a user funded agency we are seeing hunters complain, I don't remember the non-hunters complaining that their tax money is being spent so Bob could shoot a rooster. The agency is mandated to manage ALL wildlife, just not the ones we like to hunt.
Endangered species. WDFW is required to work with the Feds is managing these species. If WDFW starts to stall it opens them wide up to a lawsuit from the environmentalists and I guarantee you WDFW will lose and end up spending more than had they just managed it in the first place.
Bigtex is 100% correct when it comes to the budget. General fund money is being siphoned away from all agencies since the Court ruled WA is underfunding education by billions. WDFW will have to rely more on its license holders to pay for the dept. Unfortunately I think the election will make things worse. I'm a Trump supporter but I would expect the amount of federal money coming to states for natural resource issues will decline. I don't see this directly as a result of Trump but rather the congressional leadership. If this Happens WDFW will again need more help from its users.
People don't understand how much federal $ state fish and wildlife agencies get. WDFW gets $117 million from the Wildlife Fund mainly thru license fees, they get $114 million from the federal government. Each state gets a ton of federal cash and it's more than just Pittman-Robertson and Dingle-Johnson. The coastal states get more than the inland states simply because of the federal fisheries issues.
Federal dollars to state agencies are already decreasing, and I agree with Olyguy that it will probably decline even more with the incoming congress. Trump is a resource supporter, the incoming Sec. of Interior is big on hunting/fishing/public lands but the problem is the people who write and approve the actual budget (Congress) are not. The Chair of the House Natural Resource Committee, Rob Bishop of Utah, is a foe of natural resource agencies. He is one of the leading congressmen in the movement of transferring federal lands to state or private entities, he tried to kill the Land & Water Conservation Fund which is how state and federal agencies can buy lands for fish, wildlife, and habitat projects, and I could go on. So you couple decreasing federal dollars with decreasing state tax dollars it doesn't look good for WDFW.
What Olyguy said will be an absolute fact next session. Because of the McCleary decision, dollars will be at a premium next session, and every agency will be scrambling for every cent. I don't think that the governor's tax increase package will be shown much love by the senate Republicans, so new sources of revenue are not likely. This makes every dollar at even a higher premium. I think the 2017 session will be long and bloody.
Onto Congressman Rob Bishop. Predator control is one of my key issues. I like Congressman Bishop. Whereas it is true that Congressman Bishop is an opponent of the LWCF, he is not anti-sportsman. He is a strong pro-proponent of wolf-delisting and predator control. He is 100% behind us on wolf issues. I mention this because the key to success in politics is that we have to know the players, especially people in key places. As Sun Tzu said,
Quote
"Know yourself and know your enemies and you will win a thousand battles."Where Bishop may not be an ally in some fights, Bishop can be a big help in others.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 09, 2017, 07:45:28 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Pearson,
You were asking for feedback on license fee increases for hunting and fishing, so here is mine.
The State of Washington is asking for hunters to cough up more money at a time when hunters have lost access due to the State allowing timber companies to charge access fees and limit the number of hunters in the woods. If you can get an access permit, they generally run about $250 for drive in privileges. Add the new fee increases and what you have done is made it cost effective for me to hunt out of State which is my plan. So my family of three hunters will be spending money in another State instead of Washington. We generally all hunt deer and one or two of us hunt elk. So this is a considerable loss to the State coffers instead of a gain. And we will have access to much better hunting opportunity and longer seasons, which will give us more flexibility in hunt planning.
As for fishing, I quit fishing in Washington because the fees aren't worth the experience. For one, instead of protecting habitat desperately needed for wild salmon stocks, and making a real effort to recover native runs, the State continually throws money at a hatchery system that is part of the problem for these very native runs. The State is wasting money that could be spent on restoration. Look at the success of the Elwah Dam removal for starters. I'm not interested in supporting a system that ignores the real problems like dams, bad forestry practices such as herbicidal spraying, and farming practices, and urban sprawl into once productive salmon grounds.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but this State sucks at wildlife management. It's very good at concocting schemes to get more money from sportsmen though. Just look at that list of license, tag, and permit fees. We used to just have hunting licenses, and deer/elk tags and fishing licenses.
Rick
-------------------------------------------------
Dear Rick,
Thank you for your input regarding this matter. I will make sure that Senator Pearson gets your email in his hands today.
Sincerely,
Amber Woods
Legislative Assistant Session Aide
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 09, 2017, 07:47:54 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 09, 2017, 07:57:14 PM
I got the same reply from his AideTypical response response from any legislator. Copy and paste is their friend...
Post by: Bob33 on January 09, 2017, 07:59:14 PM
I got the same reply from his AideAnd I thought I was the only one. :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 10, 2017, 06:09:37 AM
Post by: Henrydog on January 10, 2017, 06:45:25 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 10, 2017, 12:23:39 PM
Quote
Dear Senator Pearson,
Thank you very much for taking input from hunters and fishers. I run a successful hunting outfitter business but due to decreased predator management, increased predator numbers, and decreased hunting opportunities I continue to move more of my business to Idaho, Montana, and Utah each year. I served on the Governor Inslee’s Parks And Recreation Task Force in hopes that fishing and hunting might somehow benefit, but I cannot see how fishing and hunting has benefitted? Now, I understand there is a push to increase F&G license fees and I have some serious concerns:
1. Fishers and hunters pay a good share for fish and wildlife in Washington directly by license sales and indirectly by Federal taxes on items purchased by fishers and hunters.
2. In return hunters seem to get last consideration in management by WDFW and state government.
3. Hatcheries are being closed, why should anyone believe WDFW will provide any lasting hatchery increases?
4. Our fish and game are being devastated by unregulated numbers of predators, most recently wolves are wiping out our moose herds.
5. I do not trust anything WDFW or politicians say they will do to improve hunting in Washington, history indicates the main interest is more money.
6. I had to expand my business into other states due to mismanagement of wildlife, predator increases, and season reductions in Washington.
7. As hunting opportunities decline in Washington I continue to move more of my business to other states.
I supported fee increases in Idaho because hunters and fishers might get a return for the money spent and the increase wouldn’t be somehow used to reduce hunter opportunities. If all license increases proposed were for dedicated uses that would benefit opportunities for hunters and fishers I might be inclined to support increases. It’s not that I’m opposed to increasing the sportsman’s share of the WDFW budget, but I am opposed to increases that will be used for endangered species recovery or other programs that essentially decrease opportunities for hunters and fishers. Dollars for endangered species recovery should not come from licenses purchased by hunters and fishers or from federal funds garnered by sales to hunters and fishers. Endangered species recovery should be funded by endangered species advocates, state general fund money, or specialized federal money for endangered species.
I also own a forum called Hunting-Washington.com, this issue is being discussed at length in case you might want to read some of the comments: http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,206044.0.html
Best Regards,
Dale Denney
Post by: bb76 on January 10, 2017, 12:50:16 PM
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Post by: whacker1 on January 10, 2017, 01:46:32 PM
Quote
Hello Senator Pearson,
We have met on a few occasions in Olympia as I have visited with various trade associations over the last 15 years. While I am not a constituent of yours, I am fairly engaged with our Spokane Region’s 15 legislators.
I am responding to an article I saw in NW Sportsman magazine.
http://nwsportsmanmag.com/headlines/senator-asking-washington-hunter-angler-input-fee-increases/
I have sat on this thought for a week or more to try and focus my thoughts, so here is my best effort to provide this in a concise fashion and also get my point across.
WDFW would have you believe their only alternative to funding the department is through fee increases, However, as we have witnessed in other states fee increases provide diminishing returns as costs go up purchases go down. You get sportsman of all kinds that just boycott or quit buying licenses and tags depending on whether it is a cost driven decision or a political boycott on each person’s part. And don’t forget those that will continue to hunt and fish without a license as that will make up a percentage of the folks that are buying licenses now, but won’t in the future. I myself continue to buy licenses, but like this year I spent money in other states for reasons of opportunity. I hunted a total of 3 days this year in Washington. My hunting partner & I spent 1 week in New Mexico for an elk hunt, we spent 10 days in Colorado for another elk hunt, and I spent 6 days in Montana. So for us it is not about the money, but rather the opportunity to hunt. So for me fee increases requests are about 2 things: political stance and operations of WDFW and secondly opportunity.
So to address the Opportunity first, our State has drifted into a spot where everything requires an access pass. Discover Pass to be on WDFW land or DNR land, a timber farm permit from Weyerhaeuser and other tree farm owners in each of their regions. And now Reservation to hunt programs through WDFW, which WDFW would have you believe provides more opportunity, but it really is a clumsy way to work with landowners that would provide access in any other fashion…….so, what does that cost in time management for the department, web-site costs, and such for some exclusive opportunities. While the program looks and feels good on the surface, it comes at a steep cost. Don’t get me wrong, all of these things we mentioned provides more exclusive opportunities for folks like me that can afford to do so, but it also decreases the number of people willing to participate in the sport as a whole. It divides sportsmen, and hurts hunter recruitment. People from Grays Harbor, Pacific County, Lewis County, Cowlitz County that say: “nope, I am not giving any more money to Weyerhaeuser”. Or folks like me that would hunt Western Washington Weyerhaeuser lands that are adjacent to my family’s homestead that have discontinued doing so, because I don’t want to spend another $300 to hunt my home state for 1 week elk hunt. I would apply that same money to an out of state tag or landowner tag in another state with higher success rates and longer seasons, which I equate to better opportunity. There is no incentive for the timber companies to allow access going forward other than on a pay to hunt formula. How does Washington change that trend? Timber companies’ property taxes are extremely low, and they resorted to cost recovery on these permits for enforcement of vandalism, trespass, timber theft, etc.. How can the legislature intervene to not only help the timber companies, but more importantly provide opportunity for sportmsan? Tax rates? 2 tax rates for timber land owners. Those that provide free recreational access a lower rate than those that charge for access? I am not sure the right answer, but I think the legislature has to be aware of the narrowing of access and opportunity over the last 10-15 years. It equates to the simple question: WDFW wants us to pay more to hunt half the amount of land that was available over the last 10 years? This trend will continue with costs going up and opportunity going down with the current leadership within WDFW.
So then comes the political, we have a WDFW that refuses to deal with internal strife because of repetition of ineffective leadership at the top. You have a record low number of enforcement officers. You have folks that are leaving the department early, because the leadership at the top only concerns themselves with fish/shellfish biology, management, and enforcement, while game enforcement takes a back seat. You have a hostile work environment between the Deputy Chief’s and the rest of the layers of employment on down.
You have an open federal lawsuit, civil rights lawsuit, filed against Director Unsworth, Retired Director Anderson, and a litany of folks underneath them due to retaliation, conspiring to violate first amendment rights, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and more. In said case: WDFW was ordered to reinstate and pay back wages that WDFW refused to pay. Rather than admit wrongdoing, and correcting the situation, WDFW took the opposite approach and sat on the order from the judge and officer Jones had to get an additional judge order to get WDFW to finally institute the back pay. Rather than deal with the problem at the top, WDFW begins a witch hunt investigation on new claims that the Officer Dave Jones violated policy. This is the 3rd time in less than 5 years that Deputy Chief Cenci has been sued at the federal level. Hopefully you are picking up at my obvious finger pointing at the Deputy Chief’s layer of management that seems to be the problem.
……..And still 6 months has gone by with the Chief position unfilled and 9 funded, but yet vacant positions in field enforcement according to the Director Unsworth’s report to the commission on November 4th, which would equate to 10% roughly vacancy of the enforcement. However, he did disclose that they are hiring another Headquarters position for aquatic invasive species enforcement. It seems to me that you have some people at the top attempting to protect their fiefdom with more Headquarters positions and fewer enforcement positions.
Furthermore, you have a statewide Prosecution that almost refuses to prosecute wildlife crimes and sitting judges that when prosecuted and found guilty provide a slap on the wrist. It is hard to get behind a state that wants more money, but refuses to protect their resources, and enforce their own policies.
So, what can you do to help?
Is there a way to apply pressure to WDFW to rectify their internal problems? I assume it is difficult for the legislature to have much emphasis on the internal problems, but is there a way to hold them accountable for the litigation they are creating, as those are wasted taxpayer dollars? Is there a way to apply pressure to County Prosecution to get enforcement and cost recovery up for those that violate the laws in poaching, trespass, etc? Compare to other states that have a rigid formula for fish and wildlife violators. Is there a way to hold WDFW accountable to division of funding/spending, such that, if fees are increased, that WDFW isn’t allowed to apply to more shellfish programs?
I don’t really know what tools the Legislature has at its disposal to hold WDFW accountable, but the culture needs to change within WDFW.
I have written far more than I intended, but I hope I was clear enough that sportsman grow tired of increased costs for “business as usual”.
Feel free to write or call if you have questions.
Regards,
Post by: olyguy79 on January 10, 2017, 07:49:40 PM
I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.
Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2017, 07:53:41 PM
Furthermore, you have a statewide Prosecution that almost refuses to prosecute wildlife crimes and sitting judges that when prosecuted and found guilty provide a slap on the wrist. It is hard to get behind a state that wants more money, but refuses to protect their resources, and enforce their own policies.These are county issues, not state. Realistically it is up to each county prosecutors discretion to file charges in each case. That's not something that WDFW or the legislature can fix.
Is there a way to apply pressure to County Prosecution to get enforcement and cost recovery up for those that violate the laws in poaching, trespass, etc? Compare to other states that have a rigid formula for fish and wildlife violators.
Post by: olyguy79 on January 10, 2017, 07:55:45 PM
:yeah:Furthermore, you have a statewide Prosecution that almost refuses to prosecute wildlife crimes and sitting judges that when prosecuted and found guilty provide a slap on the wrist. It is hard to get behind a state that wants more money, but refuses to protect their resources, and enforce their own policies.These are county issues, not state. Realistically it is up to each county prosecutors discretion to file charges in each case. That's not something that WDFW or the legislature can fix.
Is there a way to apply pressure to County Prosecution to get enforcement and cost recovery up for those that violate the laws in poaching, trespass, etc? Compare to other states that have a rigid formula for fish and wildlife violators.
If you want better prosecutions on fish and wildlife cases start calling your county prosecutor, they're the ones in charge. Not WDFW, the legislature, governor, etc.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Taco280AI on January 10, 2017, 08:05:09 PM
1. Increase taxes (normal business tax rates) on timber companies charging access
2. Increase fines on hunting/fishing violations
3. Heavily increase fines, and prosecution enforcement, of poachers by working with counties and prosecution
4. Decrease the amount of desk jobs that provide no benefit
5. Ensure hunting/fishing sales revenue only goes towards the same
Post by: bigtex on January 10, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
2. Increase fines on hunting/fishing violationsFines are already high. If you went out and shot a doe today your looking at a $5,000 criminal fine 364 days in jail, and a $2,000 civil fine. Problem is judges don't issue sentences to this level and prosecutors don't seek these penalties.
3. Heavily increase fines, and prosecution enforcement, of poachers by working with counties and prosecution
Fish and wildlife fine money goes to counties, not WDFW.
How are you supposed to work "with counties and prosecution" when the same prosecutor you want to prosecute your poaching case has 5 domestic assault and 10 DUI cases sitting on his desk???
I've said it a million times. If we want better prosecution on fish and wildlife cases we need to improve the funding for county prosecutor offices so they can hire more prosecutors. Anything short of that will not succeed.
Post by: Special T on January 10, 2017, 11:41:53 PM
Please don't shoot the messenger...If there some corresponding shift in control over the department you may get a different responce. I forsee a department with very few hunters who grovel at the feet of the Feds for ESA scraps because they pissed off all thier hunters.
I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.
Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 11, 2017, 09:56:35 AM
Please don't shoot the messenger...
I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.
Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for your insight, it's much appreciated. I would have no problem paying more for licenses to fully fund WDFW if hunters and fishers receive more consideration. Currently it does not appear that fishers and hunters are the top priority of WDFW, rather is seems WDFW caters more to the green groups!
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 11, 2017, 11:19:53 AM
Please don't shoot the messenger...
I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.
Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'd be all for this if it were strictly sportsmen on the F&W commission. The problem we have now is that we sportsmen pay a majority of the fees, either directly or indirectly, and don't get a majority voice, especially when it comes to predators. I'd rather pay more and get more than pay more and continually get squeezed by animal rights wackos who pay little.
Post by: JLS on January 14, 2017, 12:17:13 PM
Please don't shoot the messenger...
I was very recently just at a legislative meeting and one of the topics was funding WDFW. Two republican legislators argued that WDFW should receive zero general fund (tax) funding and sportsmen should be the biggest funding source in terms of state dollars. Basically meaning WDFW would be funded by sportsmen, the Feds (which currently contribute a big portion) and other local sources. They're mindset is fish and wildlife is not a critical govt service such as public safety and education and thus the users should support it more.
Regarding endangered species funding. Some of you have mentioned looking at other states. Well Idaho for example receives zero tax dollar funding, who do you think funds endangered species funding in Idaho?? Sportsmen thru license fees, and the Feds.....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not going to shoot you at all, and I appreciate the input.
I am very mixed on this one for several reasons:
1) Wildlife is owned by all the public, not just hunters. As such, even if we foot the entire bill, the non-hunting public still has say in the way their trust resource is managed. I worry that many folks would go into this with the assumption that because they are footing the bill, they would have exclusive say in the management decisions, and would come away sorely disillusioned to say the least.
2) Hunters end up paying for urban/suburban wildlife issues that are a public safety/nuisance issue that they shouldn't have to. As a hunter, I didn't create the issue with a mountain lion in a King County neighborhood. Thus, I don't feel that I should solely foot the bill on a public safety issue. No different than a bear in downtown Missoula or Boise.
3) Wildlife based recreation is economically important for all of Washingtonians. Again, I fail to see why hunters and anglers should be the ones footing the bill for something that benefits the entire state.
All this said, I also understand the benefits of not relying on general fund revenues, particularly right now with the continued push to fully fund state education in the way that the courts have mandated.
I would agree in that wildlife and fisheries resources are not critical, but yet they are a very important factor in quality of life.
Post by: cooltimber on January 14, 2017, 02:15:20 PM
This is the last year hunting in this liberal pos state.
looking at homes in Idaho with land.
Post by: bigtex on January 14, 2017, 02:38:16 PM
they are raising fees to help fund SAFE crack house's. What a joke, where are our fees really supposed to Go.???? Hunting/fishing fees go directly back to WDFW nowhere else and there's not any attempt at trying to change that...
This is the last year hunting in this liberal pos state.
looking at homes in Idaho with land.
Post by: Curly on January 14, 2017, 04:22:38 PM