Post by: Mtnwalker on November 15, 2017, 08:14:23 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 15, 2017, 08:21:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on November 15, 2017, 08:33:58 PM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on November 15, 2017, 08:39:47 PM
How about asking them to schedule meetinga for evenings so those working can attend.
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 08:44:45 PM
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 15, 2017, 08:45:06 PM
Post by: fishngamereaper on November 15, 2017, 08:45:39 PM
Post by: Stein on November 15, 2017, 08:50:30 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 08:52:55 PM
Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 15, 2017, 08:55:10 PM
Post by: eliandsky on November 15, 2017, 08:55:21 PM
Sometimes the merry go round never ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on November 15, 2017, 08:57:47 PM
Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Whatever the OP wants to happen.
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 08:59:22 PM
Other than writing letters and attending meetings (done) are there any major groups or movements I should be aware of or a part of? It seems like we're in need of some major changes here and I hear a lot of grumbling but am not aware of any big organized efforts being made.In my opinion no. If you asked be about the fishing side I would the Coastal Conservation Association. They've improved a lot both in WA and nationally in a short time.
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 08:59:51 PM
Initiatives change laws. What laws would be changed?Whatever the OP wants to happen.Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:01:38 PM
:yeah:Initiatives change laws. What laws would be changed?Whatever the OP wants to happen.Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
And in liberal WA, don't expect voters to do anything to improve hunting.
We couldn't even get the initiative to ban commercial gill nets to pass.
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 09:03:47 PM
Just like those other lib states like Idaho and Wyoming that are seeing low deer numbers due to wolves and poor management right?
Idaho and Wyoming are both conservative states. ;)
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 15, 2017, 09:06:30 PM
Just like those other lib states like Idaho and Wyoming that are seeing low deer numbers due to wolves and poor management right? I have had cams in three units the last few years n there’s always shooter bucks on there. Less this year as to be expected with the winter we had. I’ve only been hunting 7 years and have harvested a deer every year but my first. I can’t say any year was easier or harder then any other.
Sometimes the merry go round never ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offense but if you've only been hunting for 7 years I don't think you have any first-hand historical knowledge of washington deer to draw a comparison to. Getting a couple shooter bucks on your trail cam is in no way an indication of a flourishing deer herd
Post by: Stein on November 15, 2017, 09:10:36 PM
Initiatives change laws. What laws would be changed?Whatever the OP wants to happen.Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Whatever law you want changed or introduced. An initiative could direct WDFW to do just about anything. Close a unit, change tags, take into account something, change license prices, whatever you feel prudent, can fund and get people to vote for.
The legislature does not often get involved in micromanagement, but there is nothing preventing either them or the general public from introducing legislation to achieve a goal.
Say you think the herd in GMU X is beaten down and needs a rest, put an initiative forth to direct WDFW to curtail or prevent hunting for a period of time. Or, attend meetings and write letters, whatever you think has the best chance of success.
The OP asked about a major overhaul, to me that sounds like more than meetings. I have no stance on the topic, just observant of the way the system works these days.
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:13:53 PM
Closing areas via an initiative would be a huge mistake. You'd probably have no problem closing the unit (you'd have anti's on your side). But good luck getting that unit ever opened again (now the anti's would be against you). Plus I wouldn't want to set that precedent.Initiatives change laws. What laws would be changed?Whatever the OP wants to happen.Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Whatever law you want changed or introduced. An initiative could direct WDFW to do just about anything. Close a unit, change tags, take into account something, change license prices, whatever you feel prudent, can fund and get people to vote for.
The legislature does not often get involved in micromanagement, but there is nothing preventing either them or the general public from introducing legislation to achieve a goal.
Say you think the herd in GMU X is beaten down and needs a rest, put an initiative forth to direct WDFW to curtail or prevent hunting for a period of time. Or, attend meetings and write letters, whatever you think has the best chance of success.
The OP asked about a major overhaul, to me that sounds like more than meetings. I have no stance on the topic, just observant of the way the system works these days.
Want a unit closed? Petition the commission.
Post by: bigmacc on November 15, 2017, 09:14:51 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 09:16:07 PM
:yeah:Closing areas via an initiative would be a huge mistake. You'd probably have no problem closing the unit (you'd have anti's on your side). But good luck getting that unit ever opened again (now the anti's would be against you). Plus I wouldn't want to set that precedent.Initiatives change laws. What laws would be changed?Whatever the OP wants to happen.Find someone with money and put an initiative on the ballot. It shouldn't be too tough in this state to convince a few other people to curtail hunting for X years in a particular unit or units.Initiative for what exactly?
Whatever law you want changed or introduced. An initiative could direct WDFW to do just about anything. Close a unit, change tags, take into account something, change license prices, whatever you feel prudent, can fund and get people to vote for.
The legislature does not often get involved in micromanagement, but there is nothing preventing either them or the general public from introducing legislation to achieve a goal.
Say you think the herd in GMU X is beaten down and needs a rest, put an initiative forth to direct WDFW to curtail or prevent hunting for a period of time. Or, attend meetings and write letters, whatever you think has the best chance of success.
The OP asked about a major overhaul, to me that sounds like more than meetings. I have no stance on the topic, just observant of the way the system works these days.
Want a unit closed? Petition the commission.
You might as well kiss hunting good bye if you want to close/open units by voter initiative.
How's getting cougar hound hunting and bear baiting back open working for us? Been what 20 years?
Post by: bigmacc on November 15, 2017, 09:18:11 PM
Just like those other lib states like Idaho and Wyoming that are seeing low deer numbers due to wolves and poor management right? I have had cams in three units the last few years n there’s always shooter bucks on there. Less this year as to be expected with the winter we had. I’ve only been hunting 7 years and have harvested a deer every year but my first. I can’t say any year was easier or harder then any other.
Sometimes the merry go round never ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offense but if you've only been hunting for 7 years I don't think you have any first-hand historical knowledge of washington deer to draw a comparison to. Getting a couple shooter bucks on your trail cam is in no way an indication of a flourishing deer herd
Good post Mtnwalker. No offense also to eliandsky.
Post by: KFhunter on November 15, 2017, 09:20:53 PM
1) divorce WDFW enforcement from WSP (bring back professional game wardens)
2) send hunting revenue back to wildlife management instead of general state fund
3) make hunting a constitutional right, not a privilege
4?
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:24:19 PM
we need numerous initiatives to fix it1- WDFW Enforcement has never been apart of WSP, that merger effort has failed every time
1) divorce WDFW enforcement from WSP (bring back professional game wardens)
2) send hunting revenue back to wildlife management instead of general state fund
2- All fishing and hunting license revenue goes to the wildlife fund. Been that way for almost 10 years. Nothing goes into the general fund anymore
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 09:26:13 PM
:yeah:we need numerous initiatives to fix it1- WDFW Enforcement has never been apart of WSP, that merger effort has failed every time
1) divorce WDFW enforcement from WSP (bring back professional game wardens)
2) send hunting revenue back to wildlife management instead of general state fund
2- All fishing and hunting license revenue goes to the wildlife fund. Been that way for almost 10 years. Nothing goes into the general fund anymore
Hunting license fees have always gone to the wildlife fund. Fishing fees historically went to the general fund, and since the merger in 1994 they have slowly been diverting more to the wildlife fund. But as Bigtex pointed out, about 10 years ago the legislature directed all fees to the wildlife fund.
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 09:26:56 PM
There are far too many squeaky wheels that no matter how hard the herds get hit, how low the numbers go, they absolutely insist on being able to buy a tag and hunt every year.......... and everyone else be damned!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,219302.msg2917219.html#msg2917219
Post by: boneaddict on November 15, 2017, 09:28:08 PM
Just like those other lib states like Idaho and Wyoming that are seeing low deer numbers due to wolves and poor management right? I have had cams in three units the last few years n there’s always shooter bucks on there. Less this year as to be expected with the winter we had. I’ve only been hunting 7 years and have harvested a deer every year but my first. I can’t say any year was easier or harder then any other.
Sometimes the merry go round never ends.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No offense but if you've only been hunting for 7 years I don't think you have any first-hand historical knowledge of washington deer to draw a comparison to. Getting a couple shooter bucks on your trail cam is in no way an indication of a flourishing deer herd
If I dig deep enough into one of my three freezers, I might find a package of meat older than how long you have been hunting. :chuckle:
I’m not trying to be a jerk. I’ve just been at this a long time and have made more than just a few observations over that time. :).
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:30:24 PM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:31:36 PM
One major issue is hunters are split into those that want to manage for quantity and those that want to manage for quality.Or those who just care about "their" season. It's the old archery vs. rifle vs. muzzleloader screw each other drama.
There are far too many squeaky wheels that no matter how hard the herds get hit, how low the numbers go, they absolutely insist on being able to buy a tag and hunt every year.......... and everyone else be damned!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,219302.msg2917219.html#msg2917219
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 15, 2017, 09:33:08 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 09:33:14 PM
Sad but true.Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
I can tell you that if the grammar/spelling isn't correct, or it has obvious falsehoods the letter/opinion essentially disappears as meaningless. This is both for politicians and agencies/commissions.
Post by: DaveMonti on November 15, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
That goes for anything, not just hunting issues! :chuckle:
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 09:38:00 PM
I personally believe a big hit to their pocketbook is the only thing that will open their eyes. I would have no problem holding on to the $200 plus that I typically fork over for one year, if only I could convince about 10,000 other guys to do the same..And that $2,000,000 hold out equates to about 0.45% of WDFW's budget. Drop in the bucket.
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 09:46:29 PM
One major issue is hunters are split into those that want to manage for quantity and those that want to manage for quality.Or those who just care about "their" season. It's the old archery vs. rifle vs. muzzleloader screw each other drama.
There are far too many squeaky wheels that no matter how hard the herds get hit, how low the numbers go, they absolutely insist on being able to buy a tag and hunt every year.......... and everyone else be damned!
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,219302.msg2917219.html#msg2917219
Agreed
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 09:53:04 PM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?
Looking back, it was the "redneck hunters" that got that one right...........at one hell of cost to the herd.
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 09:54:24 PM
I'm not saying I agree with them. Just saying how it works.Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Post by: huntnphool on November 15, 2017, 09:55:53 PM
I'm not saying I agree with them. Just saying how it works.Are these the same "professional wildlife biologists" that recommended handing out a additional 1000 Methow Valley doe tags in Oct, based on their professional winter forecast of a devistating winter...........that never came?Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Oh I know, just refreshing everyone's memory. ;)
Post by: bigmacc on November 15, 2017, 10:00:54 PM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2017, 10:04:45 PM
Never was a Fish & Game Department in WA. There was a Dept. of Fisheries and a Dept. of Wildlife (prior to that they were the Dept. of Game). In 1994 the two departments merged to create WDFW.Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.
Again, I'm not saying how it is now is "right" it's just how it is.
Post by: bigmacc on November 15, 2017, 10:06:22 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on November 15, 2017, 10:06:43 PM
I agree there are a lost of special interest groups involved. But there also weren't special interest groups in the 60s, 70s or early 80s. It's not like the dept. ignored them, they simply weren't around, or at least not as powerful as today.Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Post by: eliandsky on November 15, 2017, 10:13:04 PM
Post by: Special T on November 15, 2017, 10:46:52 PM
To the general legislature our numbers arnt that big... especially since we don't speak with a unified voice.
Our numbers are large to the WDFW... OUR message to them is often as diverse as we are head strong.
A boycott won't be effective because most don't have the willpower... I know I've tried for a few years.
The WDFW operate out of fear. They are not proactive. They fear lawsuits from anti hunting groups, pissing off sportsmen, losing ESA grants, lowest department morral... In short they lack leadership.
Hopefully some of you see a trend in my observations. Leadership won't come from the department so it must come from sportsmen. It is our only hope, and it has been our weakness that has allowed Anti hunters to prey upon us.
Some of you know I'm a long time member of Silver Arrow Bowmen... a few years ago the Washington State Archery Association, Washington Bowhunters, & Traditional Bowhunters of Washington worked together to petition the state on several archery related issues. It required work to forge agreement amongst the Archery clubs, but when we approached the state we were very sucessful in advancing change. Sportsmen need to expand on this model of cooperation.
Why is it that anti groups succeed where we fail? They are organised and portray that they speak for a large block of voters. The success of the Archery coalition is proof that if we come together and speak with one voice we can make a difference.
Most of us have a passion in differing areas. Most of us belong to some kind of conservation, shooting club, firearm or hunting advocacy group. I think it is time for involved members in the 2a foundation, NRA, gun clubs, archery organizations, conservation groups ect to pressure them, as members to band together. I know I may not have much sway with many organizations but I do have it at my club, and by extension some with the WSAA.
I challenge each of you to bring up joining a coalition at you next organizations meeting. Empower you leaders to band together. While I no longer rifle hunt deer or elk I recognise I have WAY more in common with them thank do the Antis in this state.
We have lost a lot of predator control through the loss of hound hunting and trapping... I've never done either, and they have always been much smaller numbers than general hunters... We cannot make this mistake again.
Take the first step with me. Pressure your current organisation to forge an alliance with each other.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: uplandhunter870 on November 15, 2017, 10:51:05 PM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.
Bigmacc you just said it perfectly.
i will put myself out there for the potential lamb-basting that may ensue, I am one of the "professional wildlife biologists" i do not work for the State but my agency shares a lot of the same directives. i got into this field because i grew up hunting and wanted to be a force and voice of good for the sportsman.
i am in the middle of re-writing my office's wildlife and habitat management plan and i can tell you first hand that Bigmacc just about said it perfectly, aside from the money portion, a lot of our budgets have been cut pretty drastically, i dont know about wdfw as i dont work for them. but in this new modern era of wildlife management we have so many more stakeholders, initiatives, directives and interest groups to answer to. the old plan i was working under that has expired listed out 3 games species and 2 ESA species. i am now writing a plan that includes upwards of 100 species and their habitats, not a small order by any means.
flat out the era of managing solely for game is gone, its done and agencies are now looking at a holistic approach of ALL wildlife this is snakes and lizards, amphibians, game species, ESA species, little brown birds to eagles and species that no one really pays attention to like bats and butterflies.
we live in a changing time and we as hunters need to adapt to it. yes there are wolves and more wolves, hate to say it but theyre here to stay and will increase in both numbers and range. wildlife management paradigms are changing and game species are not always the main focus. i will say that the animals are out there, i spend over 200 days afield and see them out there. they are getting better at avoiding predators and that includes us.
now i do not agree with everything wdfw does or all of their management techniques. static management of the herds does not work. however, when you have an office of 2-3 biologists that are expected to manage 10s of thousands of acres theres only so much you can do in a given year, especially with the plethora of management directives and studies to conduct. something is going to get left by the way side.
so far ive seen everyone here talking about "what can we coerce wdfw into doing to benefit deer hunting". ive read over the threads and seen some good ideas and some not so good. but in reality we should be asking "what can we, the hunting population do to help" we have organization like the Mule Deer Foundation and other groups that have a sole mission of improving opportunities for deer hunting. why are we not thinking what we can do to help. we as hunters can offer a lot of help in the terms of man power for habitat improvement projects, my biggest limiting factor at work is not money or time but MAN POWER.
its an unpopular comparison but a very apt one, but have you ever wondered why the washington wolf reintroduction has been such a success? its because there are a ton of everyday members of the public that want it and they volunteer to help out. whether its with citizen science for monitoring or helping with translocation projects or etc. people are willing to donate their time and effort for a cause they believe in.
what we should be asking of ourselves as hunters is "how can we come together as a group and provide our time, knowledge,expertise and energy to help solve a concerning issue that we all care about?"
Post by: wolfbait on November 16, 2017, 04:01:33 AM
I've asked myself if a boycott would help us or hurt us..wdfw is all about revenue. If they don't get our money maybe they will listen...but then I think if we don't buy licenses the anti's will have won....it might be worth a try , who knows it could work...I know the hard core fishing community has thought about it with the recent season setting/ limits issues.
Stopping hunting is WDFW exact goal, hence the wolf introduction, protection of predators, mass deer hunts, etc..
We need some accountability on the shape of the deer herds etc., not another BS study from WDF&wolves.
WDFW's long term goal is to be funded by the tax payers not hunters.
Post by: Mallardmasher on November 16, 2017, 06:32:58 AM
Maybe putting a bounty back on yotes would be a big step, and help to improve fawn recruitment into the herd. But it all cost money.
Really the problem is not with that dept persey, but with the jello eating public that wants to run our wildlife, like reintroducing an alpha Preditor, removing the major ability to control two other alpha predictors, with bait and hounds. Those three alpha preditors we can control, Mother Nature not so.
So focus your attention on Hunting of Wolves and reintroducing bait and hounds for Bear and Cougars, and controlling an out of control coyote population........ And you will see our herds increase as fast as you have seen them decrease......
So this is where initiatives can be focused, but it will take a 100% support of all sportsman, even if baiting and Cougars are not there thing. To see the big picture, Preditor control means stronger herds.
Post by: B4noon on November 16, 2017, 07:07:10 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 07:12:27 AM
It's going to take our legislature to affect change through laws, and as of the first Tuesday of this month, that's not likely to happen very soon.
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 07:30:29 AM
Unfortunately it comes to the general election and votes. As long as Washington has a liberal Dem for governor, you can expect things to remain the same or get worse for hunters. :twocents::yeah: Plus the senate and now the house, so you can expect things to worsen!
There are a lot of factors involved with the depletion of not only the mule deer herd in our state but other herds and species as well. There are many factors that are out of our control I.e. Droughts, disease, and hard winters that all impact these herds. Our option to deal with these factors is to trust that the people we pay to manage our herds for us make the proper adjustments and use sound science and data to increase or decrease pressure on herds when they are effected by such factors in hopes to manage the species to its greatest potential as well as allow for recreational use. The current management we have entrusted with our resource is not cutting it in regards to predator control and population management making knee jerk decisions on permit numbers based on minimal data collection and weather forecasts is not looking at long term herd health. We have become an agency that manages for listed species rather then game species because federal dollars that come with listed specie management is worth more and is more consistent then license dollars shut down hunting they still have jobs and money coming in just a different focus on their desk. Shutting down units although would be a great idea in some areas will only cause them to chase more federal dollars as well as their focus will shift further from recreational management. We also need to get all players involved and find a way to work with the tribes on the management of herds it does no good to put money time and effort into trying to benefit a species if not all user groups are on board. What would be the benefit of creating conservative opportunities on herds if some of the players continue to hunt it and take out numerous animals during the process then it's all for nothing. On the other side of the fence enforcement needs to start emphasizing on game violations and poaching and let other agencies handle domestics, drunks, and pressure washing invasive species off of boats.
:yeah: We just come out of a hard winter, nature is the #1 determining factor of wildlife numbers. After we had a hard winter a good responsive agency would make the right choices to help recover herds rather than deplete them further. I can agree with all the other factors you mention, herds would recover so much quicker if we could correct some of these issues.
I expect any change we see will be in the wrong direction given the political climate in WA! :twocents:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 16, 2017, 07:35:25 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 07:39:51 AM
It's at times of low herd population that a predator pit can happen, seems like we have enough predators for that to maybe happen, time will tell.
Post by: runamuk on November 16, 2017, 07:40:21 AM
If you aren't doing that start there.
Every time I hear how people lie on there locations all I can think is they wonder why management is so messed up. You are part of the problem if you play that way.
Post by: bobcat on November 16, 2017, 07:41:34 AM
Quote
We also need to get all players involved and find a way to work with the tribes on the management of herds it does no good to put money time and effort into trying to benefit a species if not all user groups are on board. What would be the benefit of creating conservative opportunities on herds if some of the players continue to hunt it and take out numerous animals during the process then it's all for nothing.
This! ^^^
In my mind this is the biggest issue in the state for deer and elk management. We could limit our harvest in some way, even more so than we already do, but it would only allow the tribes to take more animals. It's a really tough issue to even bring up because all that happens is some people just want to begin playing the race card. So, instead the problem is ignored by the WDFW and I doubt anything will ever be done to address it. This is a bigger issue than wolves will ever be.
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 07:46:59 AM
Post by: wolfbait on November 16, 2017, 08:08:32 AM
Before the winter kill herds were building, a couple years ago deer herds were looking pretty good, I honestly think that preventing winter kill is the single biggest factor for maintaining abundant herds without severe fluctuation. The deer need something to eat in the winter, subdivisions have eaten up too much winter range.
Personally I haven't seen the herds in the Methow coming back for several years now, actually each year we see less and this year looks terrible. According to WDFW biologist, predation is included in the winter kill. Here in the Methow etc. there seems to be plenty of deer feed for the amount of deer we have.
I think predation will end the deer migration, and the deer that will be left will be the ones that get protection from towns and rural homes.
Post by: no.cen.wa on November 16, 2017, 08:15:53 AM
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is dedicated to preserving, protecting and perpetuating the state’s fish and wildlife resources. The department operates under a dual mandate from the Washington Legislature to:
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats.
**************************************************************
Provide sustainable, fish- and wildlife-related recreational and commercial opportunities.
***************************************************************
just thought I'd outline that one
Department policy is guided by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission composed of nine citizen members appointed by the Governor. Department operations are led by a Director and an Executive Management Team. The Director is appointed by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.
It's an uphill battle to change things and will take time, but well worth it. So many liberals on the west side (they carry the votes)we have our work cut out for us. Maybe we could film a pack of wolves taking down a calf, piece by piece with it's mother standing there watching.(this happened, rancher's heart sank, they could do nothing.
John G
Post by: no.cen.wa on November 16, 2017, 08:23:59 AM
Wolf Advisory Group (WAG) Members
Name Affiliation City
Bob Aegeter Sierra Club Bellingham
Shawn Cantrell Defenders of Wildlife Seattle
Tim Coleman Kettle Range Conservation Group Republic
Don Dashiell Stevens County Commissioner Colville
Tom Davis Washington Farm Bureau Olympia
Dave Duncan Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation Ellensburg
Tom Erskine Hiker and photographer Camas
Jack Field Washington State Cattlemen’s Association Ellensburg
Diane Gallegos Wolf Haven International Tenino
Molly Linville Independent cattle rancher Palisades
Nick Martinez Washington State Sheep Producers Moxee
Dan McKinley Mule Deer Foundation Spangle
Dan Paul Humane Society of the United States Seattle
Mark Pidgeon Hunters Heritage Council Bellevue
Lisa Stone Hunter Shelton
Paula Swedeen Conservation Northwest Olympia
Vacancy - -
Vacancy - -
*All WAG members were appointed to a membership term that runs through December 31,
Post by: B4noon on November 16, 2017, 08:37:25 AM
Post by: JDHasty on November 16, 2017, 08:48:38 AM
Maybe this is when we as hunters need to pack the meetings. Make them standing room only. Change should happen when hundreds show up to each meeting.
How about asking them to schedule meetinga for evenings so those working can attend.
I advocated for that since back between 1989 & 1992 when I was running SPORTCO's retail gun counter. It is an outrage that meetings are held when the people paying the bills for this State are at work.
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 08:57:27 AM
Post by: JDHasty on November 16, 2017, 09:00:19 AM
Post by: JDHasty on November 16, 2017, 09:03:47 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on November 16, 2017, 09:11:55 AM
Thank you Bigtex for your input.
When I read this, I can't help but think of the reason WFW (Washington for Wildlife) was started. Granted, it has stalled due to normal reasons of people divided with their own interests. Much of that can be time available to put towards it. Fact is Hunters are a pain in the backside. Few are capable of thinking big picture. :twocents:
Post by: no.cen.wa on November 16, 2017, 09:13:00 AM
WDFW has to get back to the bread and butter of the agency and regain focus on FISH and GAME. When they spend more time and effort chasing federal dollars due to the lack of Wildlife state dollars their emphasis is placed where the money is. For years the legislature has given WDFW the directive to cut back on managment without cutting basic functions and recreational opportunity. In trying to achieve this the legislature has cut back funding in hopes of pinching the coffers to a point managment postitions would be reduced. WDFW response chase more federal contracts which come from threatened, endangered, and invasive species. With every federal dollar they receive 32%is slated towards Administration and management fees thus retaining their cubicle in the big house. There is merit in the management of these species and they need to have a place in a healthy ecosystem, however do we need government waste in multiple agencies conducting the same efforts on the same species. Not only does WDFW manage oversee Pygmy rabbits, the federal government have their own team as well as BLM and DNR. We have multiple agencies focusing on the same effort instead of spreading our resources and creating focal points on small pictures rather then big, every agency wants the funding. The legislature has to be convinced that WDFW has become to diverse and has to many pies to put their finger in. Reign in the agency and bring it back to what it was created for to manage fish and game. Let the other players in government worry about 3 toed red bellied salamanders have a collaborative relationship with those other agencies so that the habitat is suitable for all species, but bring the focus and the mainstay of the department back to managing the game species. Probably would result in WDFW attending alot less law hearings as well if their fingers aren't in the pie. I think rather then try to be mediocre at alot of things they should try and be great at a few. Although the offset of that is management in oly may have numbers reduced to the point of becoming a listed or endangered species themselves. I wonder how bats with white-nose syndrome would fare in a uninhabited cubicle environment.Thanks B4noon for your thoughts, and solid thinking, yes I think the WDFW is pointed toward federal $, rather than what they were created for!
John G
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 16, 2017, 09:16:34 AM
I personally believe a big hit to their pocketbook is the only thing that will open their eyes. I would have no problem holding on to the $200 plus that I typically fork over for one year, if only I could convince about 10,000 other guys to do the same..WDFW already has data on the large number of hunters who do not buy Washington hunting licenses. About 10 years ago, 35% of hunters residing in Washington only hunted out of state. I doubt that proportion has decreased.
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 09:22:00 AM
Lots of good comments on here.I think WFW stalling as you've stated is proof of hunters independence and strong willed nature. IMO that weakness of ours is what needs overcoming.
Thank you Bigtex for your input.
When I read this, I can't help but think of the reason WFW (Washington for Wildlife) was started. Granted, it has stalled due to normal reasons of people divided with their own interests. Much of that can be time available to put towards it. Fact is Hunters are a pain in the backside. Few are capable of thinking big picture. :twocents:
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Grant4068 on November 16, 2017, 09:24:12 AM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Fisheries have a commercial harvest, which means an industry lobby, more money into management, and better tracking data. It's more difficult to track big game numbers. Big game also don't reproduce very quickly so any changes might take years to affect anything. Also, Idaho deer populations are doing just fine, the ratio of public land to population is something Washington will never achieve.
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 09:26:09 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on November 16, 2017, 09:27:42 AM
I do ;)
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 16, 2017, 09:39:52 AM
Little Joe Shmo could do his part on predator hunting.
I do ;)
I will be putting extra effort into predator hunting this winter. Anything we can do to give the deer a little break can't hurt.
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 09:43:21 AM
Little Joe Shmo could do his part on predator hunting.Like I have mentioned in my first post, that's all I focus on anymore.
I do ;)
Post by: bigmacc on November 16, 2017, 09:57:22 AM
Its like some of us have said, "something needs to be done" its hard to get things done going the political route in this state as phool said. Now, a boycott?...HMMMMMM?Time for me to offend people.
Who do you think the commission will listen to more, a wildlife biologist or a group of redneck hunters (I'm one too) who can't put a paragraph together? Obviously it's the bio. When I see the things that are submitted during the season setting process I shake my head. Some of the suggestions don't even look like they're written in English. Us hunters go and complain and basically say "well hunting sucks and there's less deer" but we don't have actual data to back it up most of the time. So it's the word of a hunter vs a professional biologist, and I wonder why the commission goes with the biologist.
Fishing groups have biologists who work for them and go to bat for them in the reg changing process. Doesn't seem like the hunting side has that, or they're not very successful. Want things to change? Get facts, not just John Doe's opinion on what's going on in the hills.
Well I will only speak for myself hear bigtex but my family celebrated our 100 year anniversary this year of hunting mule deer in the Methow, over those 100 years (and up until the Fish and Game Dept became the Fish and Wildlife Dept) many a Game warden, Biologist and various other folks that represented our Fish and Game visited our camp, had dinner with us and even visited with us at our homes and us at theirs. Over those years many of those folks sat with my Grandparents and Dad and picked their brains about migration routes,staging areas and so on. A lot of the gates that that are up now in different parts of the valley were discussed back in the 60,s and 70,s between my family and the Game dept. Many hours were spent in discussion about migrations and where gates would do the most good with increasing hunter numbers, encroachment, pressure et. etc. The herds were cared about by the Dept. and the Dept. cared about the hunters, now that they are Fish and Wildlife they have way to many irons in the fire, to many special interest groups to cater to and way to many egos and money on the table. I guess when they were the Fish and Game Dept, they actually listened to us "redneck hunters" also.
Bigmacc you just said it perfectly.
i will put myself out there for the potential lamb-basting that may ensue, I am one of the "professional wildlife biologists" i do not work for the State but my agency shares a lot of the same directives. i got into this field because i grew up hunting and wanted to be a force and voice of good for the sportsman.
i am in the middle of re-writing my office's wildlife and habitat management plan and i can tell you first hand that Bigmacc just about said it perfectly, aside from the money portion, a lot of our budgets have been cut pretty drastically, i dont know about wdfw as i dont work for them. but in this new modern era of wildlife management we have so many more stakeholders, initiatives, directives and interest groups to answer to. the old plan i was working under that has expired listed out 3 games species and 2 ESA species. i am now writing a plan that includes upwards of 100 species and their habitats, not a small order by any means.
flat out the era of managing solely for game is gone, its done and agencies are now looking at a holistic approach of ALL wildlife this is snakes and lizards, amphibians, game species, ESA species, little brown birds to eagles and species that no one really pays attention to like bats and butterflies.
we live in a changing time and we as hunters need to adapt to it. yes there are wolves and more wolves, hate to say it but theyre here to stay and will increase in both numbers and range. wildlife management paradigms are changing and game species are not always the main focus. i will say that the animals are out there, i spend over 200 days afield and see them out there. they are getting better at avoiding predators and that includes us.
now i do not agree with everything wdfw does or all of their management techniques. static management of the herds does not work. however, when you have an office of 2-3 biologists that are expected to manage 10s of thousands of acres theres only so much you can do in a given year, especially with the plethora of management directives and studies to conduct. something is going to get left by the way side.
so far ive seen everyone here talking about "what can we coerce wdfw into doing to benefit deer hunting". ive read over the threads and seen some good ideas and some not so good. but in reality we should be asking "what can we, the hunting population do to help" we have organization like the Mule Deer Foundation and other groups that have a sole mission of improving opportunities for deer hunting. why are we not thinking what we can do to help. we as hunters can offer a lot of help in the terms of man power for habitat improvement projects, my biggest limiting factor at work is not money or time but MAN POWER.
its an unpopular comparison but a very apt one, but have you ever wondered why the washington wolf reintroduction has been such a success? its because there are a ton of everyday members of the public that want it and they volunteer to help out. whether its with citizen science for monitoring or helping with translocation projects or etc. people are willing to donate their time and effort for a cause they believe in.
what we should be asking of ourselves as hunters is "how can we come together as a group and provide our time, knowledge,expertise and energy to help solve a concerning issue that we all care about?"
Well said uplandhunter870.....and thank you.
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 10:09:09 AM
I have no doubt that manpower is a huge issue so I have a couple of questions.
Why do we not see more calls to action from the WDFW and other agencies? If they are doing so they are Extreamly ineffective at getting thier message out.
The main experience most of on here have seen is the road blocks placed refurbishing Cherry valley and Stillwater units. I have visited and hunted both. Paul aka Happy Gilmore has documented his efforts to volunteer and Chronicled the beurocratic failures for something as simple as mowing and tilling the property.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Elkcollector82 on November 16, 2017, 10:16:57 AM
Post by: bigmacc on November 16, 2017, 10:18:38 AM
@uplandhunter870
I have no doubt that manpower is a huge issue so I have a couple of questions.
Why do we not see more calls to action from the WDFW and other agencies? If they are doing so they are Extreamly ineffective at getting thier message out.
The main experience most of on here have seen is the road blocks placed refurbishing Cherry valley and Stillwater units. I have visited and hunted both. Paul aka Happy Gilmore has documented his efforts to volunteer and Chronicled the beurocratic failures for something as simple as mowing and tilling the property.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
That might be where the "ego" part enters as I said in my post :dunno:, when they were the Game Dept. they would at least listen, they would ask questions and actually spend time talking with hunters and sportsmen. I as well as a lot of you on here remember Game Dept. folks showing up in camp, sitting by the fire and spending an hour or so just chatting about the herd, hunting and even baseball :chuckle:. There were many times over in the Methow that my dad would drive us kids over during a bad winter, we would stop by the Game managers house, we would load about 20-30 bags of deer feed in the truck and they would send us to different spots where deer were holed up and we fed them, they were happy for the help offered. They treated us as folks who also loved and enjoyed the same animals that they loved and enjoyed. I remember looking through my binoculars one day and seeing a lone hunter walking up out of a hell hole heading towards a saddle, I kept looking and noticed he was the Game manager that we knew. I stopped in and talked with him a few days later and I said "theres some big bucks in that hole, did you see any?" He looked at me with a funny look and a laugh and said "there sure is, I have 2 more days off in a couple days so you guys need to stay at least a mile away from there" :chuckle: :chuckle:. We had a good laugh. There is a big difference between the Dept. of old and what we have now, as I said(IMHO) theres to many irons in the fire, to many special interests, to much money involved and to many egos, they don't want to here from a bunch of "redneck hunters", it doesn't matter what you may know, what your history is or what your "woods education" may be, they are smarter and they know better, thats where the ego part comes in. :twocents:
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 10:19:16 AM
Just accept the fact WDFW cant control the weather!
Read in depth the herd management plans, the one thing that sticks out to me is the lack of quality habitat. Not one person has mentioned yet that the habitat our animals use is suffering and disappearing. Instead we want to blame wolves, coyotes, cougars and bears. Our national forests are getting so old and overgrown that they can't support the herds like they used to.
Listen to what RMEF and Backcountry Hunters Association and biologists are saying, our largest problem is that the habitat is lacking in quality and quantity. We need to find a way to benefit our animals while appeasing the conservation of the national forests. The management of these lands is quickly creating barren landscapes as they allow Wilderness areas to burn and to just let the timber lay there creating fuel for the next fire while scorching the land again and again. The animals are abandoning wilderness areas due to lack of livable habitat, just look at Idaho's wilderness areas to see how the elk populations have dropped off drastically.
IMO, hunters need to bind together to find ways to improve their habitat. Not worry so much about predators but find ways to expand wintering areas and not expand farming areas. Every year in the blue mountains I see more and more trees getting cut down to expand grazing land for cattle. Quickly destroying the habitat the elk and deer need.
Blaming wolves and predators is taking the easy way out. We need to find ways to improve their habitat and that's not easy. We need to find better strategies for managing our national forests and grasslands and any habitat that is used by our herds.
Our current situation where animals come out of the national forest to private land where hunting regulations are much more liberal and not to mention if they do "damage" by eating something they are even more quickly slaughtered while the average joe chases them around complaining the population is going down and blames the WDFW.
I know what youre thinking, I am a wolf lover... well im not. I know they are affecting our animals and herds and wolfs completely change habits and movements of our animals and this change is what is affecting our hunting. The wolfs push the herds out of wilderness areas and much closer to human populations where the wolfs are scared to go.
This is an incredibly challenging issue, that won't be solved by boycotting or complaining but will be solved with real discussion and finding new ways to manage our animals population and the habitat they reside upon.
I am a member of multiple conservation organizations and donate very frequently to them. Us hunters need to band together to find new solutions, we need a Washington Hunters Association or something along these lines to give us a unified voice.
RANT OVER! thank you for your time and reading this, I love civil discourse and discussions and this has been my favorite thread EVER and my longest post EVER. I would love to work with a biologist and help them in any ways I could. Remember you get more flys with Honey then vinegar so be nice to those WDFW guys before they close hunting off to us for good.
Post by: wolfbait on November 16, 2017, 10:39:53 AM
Actually the wolves kill everything out in the brush and the last place there will be any deer left is in the farm land country. Winter sets in and whats left of the migrating herds settle in the valleys, predators follow.
The best habitat in the world will not grow deer etc. if the predation is not curtailed.
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 10:40:58 AM
Before the winter kill herds were building, a couple years ago deer herds were looking pretty good, I honestly think that preventing winter kill is the single biggest factor for maintaining abundant herds without severe fluctuation. The deer need something to eat in the winter, subdivisions have eaten up too much winter range.
Personally I haven't seen the herds in the Methow coming back for several years now, actually each year we see less and this year looks terrible. According to WDFW biologist, predation is included in the winter kill. Here in the Methow etc. there seems to be plenty of deer feed for the amount of deer we have.
I think predation will end the deer migration, and the deer that will be left will be the ones that get protection from towns and rural homes.
I had heard the hunting was getting better your way, maybe not, it's not my backyard, you would know better than me. Hunting in the NE was getting very good again before the blue tongue took half the deer, the winter wasn't as hard as in your area but it did take a toll. I cut our Washington deer hunters in half to maintain an excellent success rate and it worked. Unfortunately on public land I think we have more hunters because of access issues on the westside and poor hunting around the state. Until herds recover again its going to be tough hunting on public lands.
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 10:44:27 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 11:06:30 AM
I grew up in Minnesota a state that has more wolfs then Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming... COMBINED... and trust me there is still plenty of Deer there. The wolves changed the patterns of the animals but the animals still found ways to survive. Yes predators have an impact but its not what we think it is.
I think those statements are arguable? When my relatives in MN and WI started seeing more wolves than deer from their tree stands they quit going north. They hunt the southern areas where they still see deer and there aren't many wolves. Additionally, wolves have just about finished off the northern MN moose population. Studies show each wolf eats about 8 pounds (I think that was the number) of meat a day, I simply don't think wolves are eating 8 pounds of grasshoppers a day whether they are in MN or WA, or any other state. For some explainable reason wherever wolves over populate other species decline! :dunno:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 16, 2017, 11:07:56 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 11:12:31 AM
Whats you definition of over populate? 1
When they cause a decrease in other wildlife numbers.
I see wolves no different than cougars, they eat about the same, there is room for them in our ecosystem if their population is regulated like other wildlife, the problem occurs when they are not regulated and there are too many wolves and they cause other game numbers to decline.
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 11:13:18 AM
Wolf Populations
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/wolfpopus.htm
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 16, 2017, 11:15:32 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 11:20:08 AM
The decline in Moose population in Minnesota had more to do with an expanding deer population taking away habitat and their habitat changing due to milder winters. They moved farther North in to Canada. I have killed wolfs on our family land in Northern MN and my family still shoots big bucks every year. YES wolfs kill, but taking away an animals habitat does much more damage to a herd.
Wolf Populations
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/aboutwolves/wolfpopus.htm
I think your data is incorrect or outdated, WDFW has confirmed more wolves than what your data shows, please check the WDFW wolf page, and there are arguably a lot more wolves than that! :dunno:
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 11:24:34 AM
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 11:31:19 AM
Research by the DNR continues to examine the complex potential causes of a moose population decline that started about a decade ago. The research also suggests the recent signs of stability could have resulted from higher calf survival. Much remains unknown. What is known: Factors including infections, parasites and other health issues are killing moose and predisposing them to being preyed on by wolves.
The wolves were there far before the decrease in Moose population. Many things impact our animals. Sick Moose make for easy eating but wolves didn't predispose them to dying they just cleaned up the scraps.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 11:40:12 AM
Post by: npaull on November 16, 2017, 11:47:31 AM
Quote
I want to encourage more people to read what those "liberal biologists" actually are saying and read their reports and not just blame a single bad hunting season on something like predators or bad winters.
Just accept the fact WDFW cant control the weather!
Read in depth the herd management plans, the one thing that sticks out to me is the lack of quality habitat. Not one person has mentioned yet that the habitat our animals use is suffering and disappearing. Instead we want to blame wolves, coyotes, cougars and bears. Our national forests are getting so old and overgrown that they can't support the herds like they used to.
Listen to what RMEF and Backcountry Hunters Association and biologists are saying, our largest problem is that the habitat is lacking in quality and quantity. We need to find a way to benefit our animals while appeasing the conservation of the national forests. The management of these lands is quickly creating barren landscapes as they allow Wilderness areas to burn and to just let the timber lay there creating fuel for the next fire while scorching the land again and again. The animals are abandoning wilderness areas due to lack of livable habitat, just look at Idaho's wilderness areas to see how the elk populations have dropped off drastically.
IMO, hunters need to bind together to find ways to improve their habitat. Not worry so much about predators but find ways to expand wintering areas and not expand farming areas. Every year in the blue mountains I see more and more trees getting cut down to expand grazing land for cattle. Quickly destroying the habitat the elk and deer need.
Blaming wolves and predators is taking the easy way out. We need to find ways to improve their habitat and that's not easy. We need to find better strategies for managing our national forests and grasslands and any habitat that is used by our herds.
Our current situation where animals come out of the national forest to private land where hunting regulations are much more liberal and not to mention if they do "damage" by eating something they are even more quickly slaughtered while the average joe chases them around complaining the population is going down and blames the WDFW.
I know what youre thinking, I am a wolf lover... well im not. I know they are affecting our animals and herds and wolfs completely change habits and movements of our animals and this change is what is affecting our hunting. The wolfs push the herds out of wilderness areas and much closer to human populations where the wolfs are scared to go.
This is an incredibly challenging issue, that won't be solved by boycotting or complaining but will be solved with real discussion and finding new ways to manage our animals population and the habitat they reside upon.
I am a member of multiple conservation organizations and donate very frequently to them. Us hunters need to band together to find new solutions, we need a Washington Hunters Association or something along these lines to give us a unified voice.
RANT OVER! thank you for your time and reading this, I love civil discourse and discussions and this has been my favorite thread EVER and my longest post EVER. I would love to work with a biologist and help them in any ways I could. Remember you get more flys with Honey then vinegar so be nice to those WDFW guys before they close hunting off to us for good.
:tup: :yeah:
People think the biggest threats to hunting are wolves and gun rights. So sad.
ACCESS and HABITAT are everything. If we keep it, there will be hunting forever. Extraction industries love to distract us, and quietly get our public federal lands sold to the state, so they can be sold off to the highest bidder.
Let's manage wolves, sure, absolutely. And it's ludicrous to waste money to reintroduce them when natural corridors exist for their expansion already, if the habitats can support it. But it's not the central issue threatening hunting. Habitat, and our access to it, most definitely is.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 16, 2017, 11:57:15 AM
-There were meetings to comment on the new 3 year plan held this spring/summer
-These meetings were held specifically for the purpose of the public...you, me, us to COMMENT, VOICE OPINIONS, LETT'R RIP on what you, me, WE think about WDFW, seasons, game management, etc.
-I did not attend any of these public meetings (that's on me)
-NEITHER DID YOU (who's that on?)
Public Attendance at aforementioned meetings
Yakima: 2
Vancouver: 4
Spokane: 7
Good show by me...by us.
This is a consistent deal...they (WDFW) have meetings and dang near NOBODY shows up.
All is not lost...
.
.
.
.
.
Don't call Olympia.
.
.
.
.
Call your local/regional wildlife bio!!
.
.
.
.
We got a new regional bio in 2015 and he says that he's never...hold on...wait for it...NEVER had someone call to comment on local game populations/seasons/regs/etc
So...should be publish #'s for and CALL local wildlife biologists? Probably be a good place to start.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 16, 2017, 11:59:53 AM
Did Montanans go to public meetings and make themselves heard?
See for yourself.
Now imagine if the WDFW Yakima/Vancouver/Spokane public comment meeting on the three year season setting process looked like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: bearpaw on November 16, 2017, 12:00:42 PM
From the MN DNR
Research by the DNR continues to examine the complex potential causes of a moose population decline that started about a decade ago. The research also suggests the recent signs of stability could have resulted from higher calf survival. Much remains unknown. What is known: Factors including infections, parasites and other health issues are killing moose and predisposing them to being preyed on by wolves.
The wolves were there far before the decrease in Moose population. Many things impact our animals. Sick Moose make for easy eating but wolves didn't predispose them to dying they just cleaned up the scraps.
At least the study in WA admitted wolves were eating half the moose in the northern study area and disease was getting the other half. Unfortunately some biologists become enamored by wolves (or other wildlife as has been proven by previous biology scandals that were exposed), I'm sorry but you can't tell me that 2000+ wolves are not impacting moose! Funny how the moose started disappearing when wolf numbers increased! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: 2MANY on November 16, 2017, 12:15:02 PM
Just a few more years and things will be so screwed up that it won't matter.
Post by: SkookumHntr on November 16, 2017, 12:15:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 16, 2017, 12:22:42 PM
Post by: B4noon on November 16, 2017, 12:37:00 PM
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 12:49:59 PM
The only one I can think of was planting bitterbrush after the fire. It was last minute and not well advertised.
My big beef with habitat discussions is that it is always about buying more land, not maximizing productivity of state owned land....
The land is cherry valley and Stillwater are perfect examples of land that needs caring for that volunteers are having a difficult time PROVIDING the $ and man power to maintain/fix up habitat. Land that should see maximum utility because of its close proximity to the population.
If there are habitat projects that are needed, and not enough funds or man power where is the town cryer shouting out "hunters and conservationists we need your help with XYZ project!"
Ask Happy how easy it was to have tractors with Brush Hogs "certified" so they could burn donated fuel and hours to improve lands we already own...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 16, 2017, 12:56:47 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on November 16, 2017, 01:06:31 PM
Post by: Mallardmasher on November 16, 2017, 01:28:21 PM
Post by: npaull on November 16, 2017, 02:07:50 PM
Quote
Bears alone are responsible for upwards of 35% of the fawn mortality.
Yeah this is an amazingly large and pretty underappreciated source of deer predation. Huge impact that black bears have on fawn recruitment.
Post by: bigmacc on November 16, 2017, 02:07:56 PM
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 02:20:34 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigmacc on November 16, 2017, 02:39:58 PM
You mean like this?(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171116/7936b53c601cb9a5aae2f4d7bc48ca91.jpg)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
:yike:, yep, like that :tup:
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 02:44:26 PM
Honest question. When was the last call you heard from the WDFW or USFW do help on a habitat project?:yeah:
The only one I can think of was planting bitterbrush after the fire. It was last minute and not well advertised.
My big beef with habitat discussions is that it is always about buying more land, not maximizing productivity of state owned land....
The land is cherry valley and Stillwater are perfect examples of land that needs caring for that volunteers are having a difficult time PROVIDING the $ and man power to maintain/fix up habitat. Land that should see maximum utility because of its close proximity to the population.
If there are habitat projects that are needed, and not enough funds or man power where is the town cryer shouting out "hunters and conservationists we need your help with XYZ project!"
Ask Happy how easy it was to have tractors with Brush Hogs "certified" so they could burn donated fuel and hours to improve lands we already own...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
So, elkchaser54 says we're not volunteering enough to enhance/ rebuild habitat. But unless I missed something over the years, I haven't seen the wildlife dept. making any public announcements for helping out with this issue :dunno: (emergency bitterbrush planting doesn't count either). I see more effort volunteering for fish and bird habitat than for ungulates. Sounds like there's is a lot of frustrating red tape to deal with which in turn turns off volunteers.
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 02:54:42 PM
The state owns well over a million acres within its wildlife management areas and they do a lot of work on them, however they don't have much public help. Every 8 to 10 years they rework their "PLANS" for them with the most recent being in 2014.
I am wanting to reach out to someone at WDFW to discuss with them a better way to get the publics help because its sounds like I am not the only one that would pick up a shovel or plant a tree or lay some herbicide for our favorite ungulates. But I am struggling to figure out who to talk to.... anyone have any ideas???
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 03:02:50 PM
Unfortunately thinking outside the box is suppressed.
Organizing volunteers is not an easy task. Anyone whom has been a part of a club or Organization can attest to it. It can pay massive dividends but takes time to ramp up a cadre of volunteers.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 03:07:52 PM
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 16, 2017, 03:15:15 PM
Here is a good organization to volunteer under. Elk habitat supports more deer as well.
But volunteering with the .243 is going to be more fun hahaha
Post by: Southpole on November 16, 2017, 03:16:19 PM
http://www.rmef.org/HowToHelp/Volunteer/VolunteerOpportunities.aspx:chuckle: :dunno: :chuckle:
Here is a good organization to volunteer under. Elk habitat supports more deer as well.
But volunteering with the .243 is going to be more fun hahaha
Post by: wheels on November 16, 2017, 03:29:21 PM
Post by: DeerThug on November 16, 2017, 05:43:15 PM
This year i heard 3 shots in two days and only saw one hanging that was a doe. I saw less than 10 and one barely legal buck that i passed ( Had a permit for elsewhere)
BUT WDFW still has doe tags, second deer tags, disabled etc. in this area. Obviously a biologist has not spent even a little time in there to adjust the seasons and permits accordingly. Compound that over years and ... well there ya go.
The cougars have just decimated the wildlife and as of last winter there are wolves in there as well. Not just the deer - when i first hunted there the quail, pheasant and cottontail were everywhere. This year i did not see even one quail. The pray species are just vanishing. And the livestock are supplementing the predators and they pick off a deer when they can.
The wildlife management side of wdfw is out of balance. Non-existant one could say. Not sure what we can do about it.
Some of what has been asked for is called a Lobbyist. They are expensive but effective but i would be willing to throw a couple of bucks into the cause.
Post by: wolfbait on November 16, 2017, 06:06:33 PM
As I,ve said many times, "its a multi headed snake", and not a problem that can be fixed by chopping off just one head. As some have said, its a predator problem, its a habitat problem, too many hunters putting to much pressure on certain herds, bad winters, fires, poor management of our herds and forest regeneration. All are valid issues and problems. MrMykiss brought up some good points about each of us doing what we can do to help fix the problem and not just gripeing about it amongst ourselves, go to meetings, write letters etc. etc.. I will take his advice and I hope more do. We should all hunt predators and buy tags(I already do that and have for years), If each one of us killed a few coyotes every year that would be a lot of dead yotes, we have killed 9 so far this year in the Methow. We had opportunities to kill 3 different bears and a handful of cougars this year, could not get clean shots at the bears(last thing I want to do is go after a wounded bear) and the cats were gone by the time we shouldered our rifles :bash:. That example alone hi-lites the predator problem, at least in the Methow! We seen a ton of coyotes, 3 big bears and a handful of cougars(including a dead collared cat in the back of a truck), more bear/cougar and coyote sign than I have ever seen in the 60 years I,ve been hunting there, not to mention all the cached kills we came across(about 20 or so) and this was in a 10 day time frame! The problem truly is multi-headed.
Well put Bigmac,
I don't see WDF&wolves leaping to their feet with any effort to change the outcome, remember they were doing the wolf push in the 1980's and 90's. They have known all along what their bogus wolf plan would do to the ungulate herds and livestock, heck they had several years of watching it happen in ID, MT and Wyoming.
I don't have an answer as to how to force WDFW to manage the game herds, I do know that if some kind of predator control isn't implemented either by WDFW or the public the game herds will be depleted to the point their won't be anything left to hunt.
Habitat is secondary etc..
Post by: bigmacc on November 16, 2017, 06:17:03 PM
Ok time for me to weigh in. Back on point I think it comes down to basic management and someone that can make decisions. Both on game and predator. I have hunted deer in the same place for 18 years. The first year we killed 9 bucks the first day. With herds of 20 or more deer everywhere. Just pick out the one you want. Now out of my group I am the only one left that hunts there. Some dont hunt at all. Last year it took me 11 days to find a legal buck. Only seeing a few in a day.
This year i heard 3 shots in two days and only saw one hanging that was a doe. I saw less than 10 and one barely legal buck that i passed ( Had a permit for elsewhere)
BUT WDFW still has doe tags, second deer tags, disabled etc. in this area. Obviously a biologist has not spent even a little time in there to adjust the seasons and permits accordingly. Compound that over years and ... well there ya go.
The cougars have just decimated the wildlife and as of last winter there are wolves in there as well. Not just the deer - when i first hunted there the quail, pheasant and cottontail were everywhere. This year i did not see even one quail. The pray species are just vanishing. And the livestock are supplementing the predators and they pick off a deer when they can.
The wildlife management side of wdfw is out of balance. Non-existant one could say. Not sure what we can do about it.
Some of what has been asked for is called a Lobbyist. They are expensive but effective but i would be willing to throw a couple of bucks into the cause.
Great post, on the money and to the point :tup:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 16, 2017, 07:56:00 PM
Post by: Humptulips on November 16, 2017, 08:00:55 PM
There is an answer to that and that answer is participation in hunter advocacy groups.
I am the president of The Washington State Trappers Association http://watrappers.com/.
We have a bit less then half the number of licensed trappers in the State signed up as members. It irks me that every trapper in the State isn't a member. Believe me it matters when I speak to Department personnel or the Commission and I can quote a large number that I represent. Even at that we are pretty small potatoes because there just aren't that many trappers.
I would be willing to bet though that we have a far higher rate of participation then any other group of Sportsmen in WA,
I also am a member of Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation http://w4wc.org/index.html .
They represent hunters but their membership numbers compared to hunters is abysmal.
Both are members of the Hunters Heritage Council http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html.
They get to set down with WDFW and get listened to on policy. I heard one person mention a lobbyist. Well, they have a lobbyist.
But again it is about numbers. Imagine what influence they could have if every hunter was a member. On top of that I know we have some really smart people on here but I do not see most of them vying for positions in these organizations.
Lets just dream a little about most if not all hunters joining. The leaders would really be listened to and could have a very large influence on the direction of the agency. With that many people there could be regional or even county directors and advisory groups to WDFW.
CNW and HSUS have influence with the agency only because they can tout large numbers. We need the same.
Join one of the hunting groups, go to the meetings, voice your concerns and volunteer. Run for a position. All well and good to get up before the Commission and voice your ideas but I think there is far more to be gained by standing together.
Legislature is a tougher nut to crack but the same holds true in getting changes in RCWs.
I do not think an Initiative is a smart thing to talk about. Possibly you do not realize how much money it takes to win an Initiative and the numbers are not with us on most issues.
Post by: TD3939 on November 16, 2017, 08:03:47 PM
Well said and I think we can all agree with this point. Being 57 years old and hunting my whole life I've seen this thing get worse and worse. I have person experience of seeing what can happen if a deer herd is managed properly. I've seen the deer numbers basically explode in the last 25 years in parts of Douglas county...on private land where predators and the harvest is controlled. So I offer 2 suggestions that WILL help immediately.
1. eliminate the multi-season tags. All you're doing is putting more people in the field and more pressure on the deer. I know it's a big money maker but come-on knock it off!
2. TRY... and do SOMETHING about the Native American Trophy harvesting. I know this one is very difficult.
As another suggestion I support permit only hunting for a few years until the herd stabilizes .
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 16, 2017, 08:59:47 PM
QuoteBears alone are responsible for upwards of 35% of the fawn mortality.
Yeah this is an amazingly large and pretty underappreciated source of deer predation. Huge impact that black bears have on fawn recruitment.
Curious where ya'll got this info from??? Post up a link
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 16, 2017, 09:06:34 PM
As I've said many times, "its a multi headed snake", and not a problem that can be fixed by chopping off just one head.
Well said and I think we can all agree with this point. Being 57 years old and hunting my whole life I've seen this thing get worse and worse. I have person experience of seeing what can happen if a deer herd is managed properly. I've seen the deer numbers basically explode in the last 25 years in parts of Douglas county...on private land where predators and the harvest is controlled. So I offer 2 suggestions that WILL help immediately.
1. eliminate the multi-season tags. All you're doing is putting more people in the field and more pressure on the deer. I know it's a big money maker but come-on knock it off!
2. TRY... and do SOMETHING about the Native American Trophy harvesting. I know this one is very difficult.
As another suggestion I support permit only hunting for a few years until the herd stabilizes .
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
WE (the hunters) are the deer's worst enemy's.
Post by: eliandsky on November 16, 2017, 09:11:26 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on November 16, 2017, 09:56:33 PM
There’s more conspiracies and disinformation here then in an Xfile
Please, by all means..........enlighten us.
Post by: scudmaster on November 16, 2017, 10:16:46 PM
I never could figure out what the OP was suggesting as a course of action by the state, but I would say that a HUNTER LED proposal to WDFW to close more units to general season hunting and draw only areas with liberal tag quotas would be one way to limit the hunting pressure on specific herds. But in my experience most hunters in this state are more interested in opportunity to go afield and do not want to limit their opportunity to hunt their preferred units. I am not sure either option is right, lower numbers, lead to lower harvest, so it is self regulating as far as populations go, even for predators. Where I hunt in WY there is a 3-5 area cycle of high numbers of rabbits, then a high number of yotes. they clean out the rabbits and the yotes die off. Then the rabbits boom again and the cycle continues.
In the end, my vote is to let science (i.e. biologist) dictate the wildlife management. Once you get political, you end up like British Columbia where they went against the science and essentially stopped the Grizzly hunt with special interest outcry. Once that happens, they good luck getting a science based system back. I do agree that we can push for more bios on more species. Turkey numbers are in the basement and there are no turkey bios that I have been able to talk to at WDFW, it is always a secondary job for another bio.
I agree with many posts about being more active in Hunting Groups and volunteering time, donating money, and attending meetings. It is all rewarding when you see things change. And it lowers the stress when you understand what is going on in the inside.
For what its worth.
Post by: Special T on November 16, 2017, 10:31:20 PM
this information will be compiled for the express purpose of organizing sportsmen. It wont be publicly shared, however i will be scouring the internet for public contact information. if you can send me a link with lists that are published online, or the contact information because you are a member i would appreciate it.
Organization, Position, Region, name phone number, Email.
Im quite certain there are more than a couple of people that would vouch for me and i will share my personal contact with you by PM.
I am a active member of Silver Arrow Bowmen, and have held several board positions. In intend on doing something and see this as the first step. If you want to help me compile this information that would be great.
Some examples are associations like Washington Archery Association (i got that one covered) conservation groups like RMEF, MDF, DU Phesants forever, or hunting advocacy groups like Washington Waterfowl Association, SCI ect. looking for chapter/ regional on up.
thank you
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 17, 2017, 05:22:42 AM
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 07:06:32 AM
Should we send along our social security number and debit card with that?Not sure if your serious or not... no I don't want that.
How are we supposed to build a coalition and organize if we cannot build a contact sheet? Wouldn't you like hunting groups to sit tighter and hammer some benifishal stuff out? The Anti Groups do it.
I've already been given some information and I'm compiling on my own. It is going to happen... The question is do you want your club or Organization to be part of the solution.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on November 17, 2017, 08:31:14 AM
Should we send along our social security number and debit card with that?Not sure if your serious or not... no I don't want that.
How are we supposed to build a coalition and organize if we cannot build a contact sheet? Wouldn't you like hunting groups to sit tighter and hammer some benifishal stuff out? The Anti Groups do it.
I've already been given some information and I'm compiling on my own. It is going to happen... The question is do you want your club or Organization to be part of the solution.
I applaud your effort T, however I do have issues with some of our organizations and their relationship with WDFW.
Before I discuss those issues, can you tell us all, your long term plan and what you would like to see happen?
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 08:44:51 AM
Dang. When you guys are ready I'll give you the answer.Ok so we all yammer on for 4 pages about a "Major WDFW overhaul" and I get a phone call from a WDFW friend. Basically goes like this "Are you on Hunt-WA? Tell them this..."
So I tell you...
WDFW asked for public input on rules and season setting, WDFW set town halls for public comment, there was almost zero attendance.
District biologists get almost zero phone calls to discuss concerns and receive input.
I post #'s for all the district bios.
You ignore it and we continue yammering on about whatnot and what have you.
.
.
.
You/we are getting exactly what you/we deserve.
Go ahead and flame me...you're getting exactly what you deserve from WDFW!!**
**I am too!!
*With the exception that I've emailed the heck out of my thoughts/observations/proposed changes to the management of the Kahlotus unit.
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2017, 08:48:00 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 08:58:07 AM
1. I think that in the east/central part of the state we need to go draw for deers in all units and eliminate most doe tags...that means that some years you may not be able to hunt deer in WA but hopefully hunting will get better.
Post by: huntnphool on November 17, 2017, 09:16:09 AM
What do we want to change thread? Polls?
1. I think that in the east/central part of the state we need to go draw for deers in all units and eliminate most doe tags...that means that some years you may not be able to hunt deer in WA but hopefully hunting will get better.
There are several threads with ideas, the problem with your #1 is not everyone agrees.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 09:32:34 AM
Sorry I mean...a organized thread:)
Post by: Mudman on November 17, 2017, 09:45:46 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2017, 09:48:09 AM
Dang. When you guys are ready I'll give you the answer.Ok so we all yammer on for 4 pages about a "Major WDFW overhaul" and I get a phone call from a WDFW friend. Basically goes like this "Are you on Hunt-WA? Tell them this..."
So I tell you...
WDFW asked for public input on rules and season setting, WDFW set town halls for public comment, there was almost zero attendance.
District biologists get almost zero phone calls to discuss concerns and receive input.
I post #'s for all the district bios.
You ignore it and we continue yammering on about whatnot and what have you.
.
.
.
You/we are getting exactly what you/we deserve.
Go ahead and flame me...you're getting exactly what you deserve from WDFW!!**
**I am too!!
*With the exception that I've emailed the heck out of my thoughts/observations/proposed changes to the management of the Kahlotus unit.
If WDFW really wants input from hunters they should have the meetings in different areas around the state. I remember one of the few meetings in Colville, the room was full, but WDFW don't like to hear what people in Colville have to say and almost never meet here. Hunters from eastern WA can't always go to Spokane, Moses Lake, or Olympia. Then after these public meetings if hunters see there input used they will feel it was worth their time. What many hunters see is an agency using public meetings to say they have involved hunters. It appears most of the real decisions are being made to accommodate groups like CNW with little regard for hunter input at public meetings. :twocents:
I participated on the whitetail working group, in the end the agency managers did what they wanted to do anyway and never contacted us again, they did not want to involve us again, it was a complete waste of time for all involved. I used to think hunters being involved could make a difference, I was sadly mistaken. :twocents:
Legislators elected from my district are about the only people I have any faith in. They are the only people who really have any control over WDFW since they help control some of the purse strings. I think the display by our WDFW director at the senate hearing pretty much sums up the image of WDFW! :dunno:
Post by: Mudman on November 17, 2017, 09:52:37 AM
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 09:53:38 AM
I am at fault, I did not attend...but I coulda gone to Yakima and I should have.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 09:54:20 AM
:yeah: Follow the $. Heck they don't even listen to the state supreme ct or voter initiatives. Reality check.No, you're right. Give up. You're getting what you deserve from WDFW.
I'm out.
Post by: bearpaw on November 17, 2017, 10:13:53 AM
Ummm...Spokane and Yakima doesn't do it for ya?
No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.
Senate Ways & Means Committee
https://www.tvw.org/watch/?clientID=9375922947&eventID=2017011402&eventID=2017011402&autoStartStream=true
start watching at 53:30
listen to senator at 1:10:55
:dunno:
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 10:28:51 AM
Thank you. We have to start some where. The only way we can build a coalition is to sit down with fellow sportsmen and thier groups and hammer out things we agree on.Should we send along our social security number and debit card with that?Not sure if your serious or not... no I don't want that.
How are we supposed to build a coalition and organize if we cannot build a contact sheet? Wouldn't you like hunting groups to sit tighter and hammer some benifishal stuff out? The Anti Groups do it.
I've already been given some information and I'm compiling on my own. It is going to happen... The question is do you want your club or Organization to be part of the solution.
I applaud your effort T, however I do have issues with some of our organizations and their relationship with WDFW.
Before I discuss those issues, can you tell us all, your long term plan and what you would like to see happen?
Collecting this phone tree (for lack of a better term) comes in handy for 2 reasons. That are mutually beneficial, Political, and conservation/sportmanship
Conservation/sportmans ship
Most of us have something that drives us. Some love the setting wings over decoys, the bugal of an elk, the crashing of rams heads on a rock bluff. Some love thier method and want to share as much as they can about it. You see that passion on here about trapping, blackpowder, archery, and long range shooting. We need to organize to help each other. Most people care about something specific but act locally because if all that is needed is manpower they can show up for half a day meet some people and lend a hand. Good communication and disemination of information is key
Here are 2 examples.
How many of you on here remember the last min request from Dan McKinney from MDF needing help to repair some deer fencing off I90 near Ellensburg? I do. I don't belong to Me for live in Eburg but I posted it up on FB and alerted my friends and fellow sportsmen that live in the valley. I don't remember how that emergency project worked out but it was a valuable opportunity.
The last couple of years I have worked hard to have a Traditional bow only archery 3d shoot at SAB. I contacted Curt Brisket and some members of Traditional Bowhunters of Washington about the shoot. I had volunteers show up to a club they were not members and in one case a man who could not shoot that weekend but helped to setup on Friday.
. I've learned this through my work at Silver Arrow Bowmen. It is the least fun or sexy part of archery but doing the work of finding contacts and spreading the word is how you get stuff done. Trust me when I say this. I don't really want to compile this information. I don't see anyone else doing it and it needs to happen.
I'm not just a bow hunter. I hunt waterfowl, shoot my rifle and take my dog out and frustrate my self on Phesant. I belive there are sportsmen like me that will help my related interests but timely communication is key.
Political.
I was not heavily in evolved with the Archery coalition but my Friend Ren Sarns Washington chair was and we talked about it plenty with other Bowmen from around the area.
There were a few issues related to archery that needs to be addressed. Lighted knocks, mechanical broad heads and some rule clarifications. It took sitting down, a bunch of debate and wrangling. When TBW, WSAA, &WB petitioned the state as a unified block the WDFW took notice and made changes. If you listen to complaints by the department they state hunters are giving them mixed messages and how are they to decifer if Joe 6packs idea on an issue are supported by a large amount of stake holders. When sports men band together we can make changes. This is our weakness. I want to expand this model of success. I don't know how exactly it will work, or what kinds of issues we can move forward. I do know that a huge majority of hunters agree with more predator control. To me this is a starting point.
Desparage our political enemies,the anti hunting crowd, all you like pointing out thier flaws. They do one thing exceeding well. They are organised and coordinated.
I attended the northcades Griz introduction meeting in Skagit County... The one they didn't want to have, but were compelled to. CNW and Wolf Haven were there in the middle of the day to make thier case. I did not make it in time to be able to make public comment since it was during working hours. They were and were organised with statements of support and represented numbers to the County Commisioners and USFW.
Where was our organized responce?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 10:49:18 AM
Sportmens organizations need to network. Each have developed special relation ships with local legislators, Bios, enforcement, county commissioners ect. To capitalize on our experiences we need to meet discuss and build friendships to movehunting issues forward instead of playing in organized defence.
So I will address something that HP alluded to. We are a headstrong group. Each of us may feel slighted by XYZ organisation because of something they have done, or didn't do. Some of these same kinds of animosities existed between the 3 archery Groups for whatever reason.
If they were able to get over the ribbings and condemnation of having Training Wheels, being Ludites, anal target shooters and work together other organization can work past those as well.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2017, 11:20:09 AM
The commissions are essentially powerless (in terms of setting regs) but serve as an advisory for F&W issues in the county to the state Fish and Game Commission.
Additionally, 50% of fines generated from F&W cases go to the county F&G Commission who then disseminates it for F&W projects in the county.
Post by: Mr Mykiss on November 17, 2017, 12:43:47 PM
No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.So...you'd get more than the 7 people who came to Spokane if you held the meeting in Republic? C'mon now.
Yes I've watched the video, thanks.
So are you saying that it's futile and it doesn't make a difference to give input.
See the list of public meetings that we didn't attend?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Below that see Public Comment on specific rule proposals will happen in February 2018??
Maybe comment in Feb?? :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe call your local wildlife bio?? :dunno: :dunno:
Ok, now I'm out.
Post by: Southpole on November 17, 2017, 12:59:22 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2017, 01:23:23 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2017, 01:24:54 PM
:yeah:No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.So...you'd get more than the 7 people who came to Spokane if you held the meeting in Republic? C'mon now.
Yes I've watched the video, thanks.
So are you saying that it's futile and it doesn't make a difference to give input.
See the list of public meetings that we didn't attend?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Below that see Public Comment on specific rule proposals will happen in February 2018??
Maybe comment in Feb?? :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe call your local wildlife bio?? :dunno: :dunno:
Ok, now I'm out.
What's the department supposed to do, go to every county in the state? I don't know of a department in any state that does that. And if they did, the process would get even longer.
People will always complain about anything. Have a meeting in Colville, well *censored* why wasn't it in Chewelah, I don't want to drive to Colville.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 17, 2017, 01:33:37 PM
I’ve been patiently waiting to see how long it took before someone came up with the right answer before I chimed in. Not to take anything away from any of the other posts on this thread, but very few responses actually answered the gist of the question posed by the OP.
In short, to echo Humptulip’s excellent response, organizations that hunters say they want already exist AND are already doing extraordinary things for the benefit of sportsmen in this state (and beyond). As to what we can do moving forward, I and others are laying the groundwork that will further help all sportsmen unify and work together around common goals.
First, let’s discuss the organizations: Safari Club International and their local chapter network (SCI), Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation (WWC) and Hunter’s Heritage Council (HHC).
There are six SCI chapters spread around the state that are heavily involved in both hunter advocacy and wildlife conservation. Every single hunter in Washington State should be an SCI member. After all, we are essentially the NRA for hunting and hunters and work hand in hand with other sportsmen's groups. Contrary to the mistaken perception some may have of SCI as being a club for rich African hunters, SCI is made up of people from every walk of life and exists purely to drive hunter advocacy and wildlife conservation at the local, state, national and international level. SCI's leadership is extremely well connected politically (on both sides of the aisle) and is literally the 800 lb. political gorilla for the benefit ALL hunters. Didn't know that??? That's our fault! Rank and file hunters may have not heard about us, or perhaps have that misconception thing I just mentioned, but I can absolutely guarantee that every U.S. Senator and Representative (and their staffs) and the higher ups in the various relevant federal and state agencies know who we are and what we do. We have certainly come a long way since the late 70's when SCI started off as a social club, but we have a looooong way to go in terms getting the word out to the rank and file sportsmen. As a sitting Board member of SCI that serves on the Membership and Chapter Development Committee (and participate in a handful of other committees) and the Regional Representative for the Pacific Northwest, I am absolutely all ears for ANY positive input I could get from you all on how best to continue our membership growth and the legislative influence that comes with it. www.sci-washington.com Feel free to shoot me a PM. Join us and get involved!
And, as Bruce mentioned, a couple very influential “organizations of organizations” already exists for sportsmen: Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation (WWC) and Hunter’s Heritage Council (HHC). They are very closely aligned. WWC mainly exists for education and public outreach whereas you can think of HHC an extremely effective political sledgehammer. I am involved with each organization and a Board member of the latter. Haven’t heard of us you say??? Again...that’s our fault. And so, just like SCI, obviously we need to do a better job of getting the word out since the rank and file hunter may not really know about us. So...that satisfies the answer to the question of Who hunters can turn to right now for help. Our next meeting is on December 10th in Ellensburg. If you are part of the leadership of any sportsmen related organization, please come join us! Feel free to PM me for further details.
But what can be done to improve our political influence and bring sportsmen together as a larger, more unified coalition? Answer: I and others are actively laying the groundwork for a viable solution that I’m 100% confident all conservation-minded sportsmen will support. Coincidentally, I sat down for a couple beers over dinner last night with the OP and filled him in on "The Plan". He got it immediately and has agreed to help. Special T, perhaps you can work with him to help assemble the info he and I discussed?
What is the plan you ask? Instead of reinventing the wheel, we would essentially replicate what the fishing community established almost 3 decades ago: The Regional Fisheries Coalition (RFC) and it’s Regional Fisheries Enhancement Groups (RFEG’s).
Please take some time to look at this website. Substitute "fishing" with "hunting" while you are reading:
http://regionalfisheriescoalition.org/about-us/
Then, take a look at their 2015 Annual Report: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01777/wdfw01777.pdf Again, substitute the words "fishing" with "hunting" when reading. Reflect on how the different conservation-minded sportsmen's groups could work together on projects that would be mutually beneficial in their different sub-regions.
The beautiful part of this is that all of the people required to pull this off already exist within and among the various sportsmen and conservation groups around the state (NRA, SCI, SCIF, NSSF, RMEF, RMGA, MDF, WSF, DU, WWA, Inland Northwest Wildlife Council, Silver Bowmen, Etc., Etc., Etc.)
And, the umbrella organization(s) already exist (Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation and/or Hunter’s Heritage Council).
We are assembling and organizing all the leadership from all the different existing conservation groups to gel at a more local level (like the fishing community as done with RFEG’s). It will be a unifying structure whereby hunter advocacy efforts would both be localized in accordance with local interests, but also as integral components of a much larger and more influential body.
This is happening. The sportsmen’s groups you belong to need to be a part of it. Let them know they need to get on board.
If you want to be part of the solution, please send me a PM.
Sincerely,
Allen R. Ernst
Region 1 Representative
Safari Club International
www.sci-washington.com
www.scifirstforhunters.com
E-mail: allen.ernst@comcast.net
Cell: 206.229.2519
Fax: 206.237.2696
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2017, 01:33:57 PM
Is that something like you were thinking?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2017, 01:36:29 PM
Why do we need to attend meetings? Nowadays everything can be done online. They are always asking for input through online surveys/questionnaires, and I usually give them feedback. It even seems that at least in a couple instances, they used my suggestions, although it could have just been a coincidence that what I asked for, I got when the new regulations/seasons were published. However, they haven't yet taken me seriously when I have asked them to force the tribal hunters to follow the same rules that we do. ;)
Why would they? The have no power to affect changes in Federal treaties.
Post by: Bushcraft on November 17, 2017, 01:36:52 PM
I like the idea of a coalition, ST. You'd need to first start an organization that has a name that says what it is. WA Sporting Organization Coalition, for example.Come up with a mission statement that's clear and concise which basically says the organization's purpose is to combine the strength of as many individual orgs as possible to promote better hunting access, reform outdated and ineffective regulation, and represent sportsman to state agencies and the legislature in matters which affect the present and future of our sporting heritage. I would think that you'd have a list of all the separate organizations and on each issue, you'd confirm the support of each organization. There may be issues of which backcountry Anglers and the Elk Foundation won't both be on the same side. Then the organizations who do latch onto a specific "cause" for lack of a better word, would each contact their members to get involved - email or letters, attend meetings, protests, whatever is planned.
Is that something like you were thinking?
We may have posted at the same time. Per my post just prior to yours, please note that those organizations already exist. But, we can do better. Join us!
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 01:40:17 PM
How about have the dept. come to us on the forum, that'd be a lot easier :dunno: or have someone print out threads like these, put them in a folder and send it to them.I think there is value in the WDFW coming on here to get the pulse of thier major stakeholder. The problem appears to be that they are unsure about a great many things. They don't really treat thier job like the private sector does and can't seem to relate. If you or I were hearing a lot of complaints, or didn't understand why a large portion of our customers were in revolt we would probably seek them out and just chat to try and get to source of the issue or some kind of well thought out remedy.
I think the department operates out of fear. They choose not to be proactive and engage. I belive that BECAUSE they don't actively engage a lot of false quasi truths get spread.
Cases In point some mayremeber WDFWinsider whom worked in the office. I think it was special permits or something. He talked in general terms about the department, his job and general info about the Department. He was told to stop coming on here. When he was fired for "dating his boss" he came back on here while looking for a job. He couldn't find one because had been blackmailed for talking about the department. I belive most of his discussions were professional in nature.
Big Tex hides his identity like it was a nuclear launch code. 90% of his responce s are educational in nature the other 10% are thought out responce s to posses off folks about infractions or rules.
The department appears to like it's insulation from us, and much of it has a hard time relating.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2017, 01:47:31 PM
Why do we need to attend meetings? Nowadays everything can be done online. They are always asking for input through online surveys/questionnaires, and I usually give them feedback. It even seems that at least in a couple instances, they used my suggestions, although it could have just been a coincidence that what I asked for, I got when the new regulations/seasons were published. However, they haven't yet taken me seriously when I have asked them to force the tribal hunters to follow the same rules that we do. ;)
Why would they? The have no power to affect changes in Federal treaties.
They could do something if they wanted to. But they obviously don't. Not change the treaty, but some sort of co-management where the Yakama tribe isn't killing more than what is sustainable. I find it hard to believe the WDFW can do nothing to control the number of deer and elk killed by the Yakama tribe, when they DO have a say in how many bighorn sheep and mountain goat they are allowed to harvest.
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 01:51:52 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 17, 2017, 02:04:02 PM
Why do we need to attend meetings? Nowadays everything can be done online. They are always asking for input through online surveys/questionnaires, and I usually give them feedback. It even seems that at least in a couple instances, they used my suggestions, although it could have just been a coincidence that what I asked for, I got when the new regulations/seasons were published. However, they haven't yet taken me seriously when I have asked them to force the tribal hunters to follow the same rules that we do. ;)
Why would they? The have no power to affect changes in Federal treaties.
They could do something if they wanted to. But they obviously don't. Not change the treaty, but some sort of co-management where the Yakama tribe isn't killing more than what is sustainable. I find it hard to believe the WDFW can do nothing to control the number of deer and elk killed by the Yakama tribe, when they DO have a say in how many bighorn sheep and mountain goat they are allowed to harvest.
Believe it or don't. The WDFW has no say on treaty rights. Treaties are federal and the US Congress passes them. I believe they're signed into law by the President. The WDFW may be able to regulate them on bighorn sheep and goats because they were hunted out completely at the time of the drafting of the treaties - I have no idea. If you want to change the way the Yakima or any other tribe harvest animals, you've got to approach the tribal council.
Do you even actually know how many deer and elk the Yakimas harvest each year? @bobcat
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 02:05:55 PM
I like the idea of a coalition, ST. You'd need to first start an organization that has a name that says what it is. WA Sporting Organization Coalition, for example.Come up with a mission statement that's clear and concise which basically says the organization's purpose is to combine the strength of as many individual orgs as possible to promote better hunting access, reform outdated and ineffective regulation, and represent sportsman to state agencies and the legislature in matters which affect the present and future of our sporting heritage. I would think that you'd have a list of all the separate organizations and on each issue, you'd confirm the support of each organization. There may be issues of which backcountry Anglers and the Elk Foundation won't both be on the same side. Then the organizations who do latch onto a specific "cause" for lack of a better word, would each contact their members to get involved - email or letters, attend meetings, protests, whatever is planned.This is what I've been thinking. And the first step is meeting each other, talking and finding out where our common goals can bring us together. Too often we seem to focus on where we disagree, and not enough time on where we do.
Is that something like you were thinking?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Southpole on November 17, 2017, 02:09:23 PM
Wow, who do they think they are the FBI/special ops or something :rolleyes:.How about have the dept. come to us on the forum, that'd be a lot easier :dunno: or have someone print out threads like these, put them in a folder and send it to them.I think there is value in the WDFW coming on here to get the pulse of thier major stakeholder. The problem appears to be that they are unsure about a great many things. They don't really treat thier job like the private sector does and can't seem to relate. If you or I were hearing a lot of complaints, or didn't understand why a large portion of our customers were in revolt we would probably seek them out and just chat to try and get to source of the issue or some kind of well thought out remedy.
I think the department operates out of fear. They choose not to be proactive and engage. I belive that BECAUSE they don't actively engage a lot of false quasi truths get spread.
Cases In point some mayremeber WDFWinsider whom worked in the office. I think it was special permits or something. He talked in general terms about the department, his job and general info about the Department. He was told to stop coming on here. When he was fired for "dating his boss" he came back on here while looking for a job. He couldn't find one because had been blackmailed for talking about the department. I belive most of his discussions were professional in nature.
Big Tex hides his identity like it was a nuclear launch code. 90% of his responce s are educational in nature the other 10% are thought out responce s to posses off folks about infractions or rules.
The department appears to like it's insulation from us, and much of it has a hard time relating.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 02:12:54 PM
Lol no...Wow, who do they think they are the FBI/special ops or something :rolleyes:.How about have the dept. come to us on the forum, that'd be a lot easier :dunno: or have someone print out threads like these, put them in a folder and send it to them.I think there is value in the WDFW coming on here to get the pulse of thier major stakeholder. The problem appears to be that they are unsure about a great many things. They don't really treat thier job like the private sector does and can't seem to relate. If you or I were hearing a lot of complaints, or didn't understand why a large portion of our customers were in revolt we would probably seek them out and just chat to try and get to source of the issue or some kind of well thought out remedy.
I think the department operates out of fear. They choose not to be proactive and engage. I belive that BECAUSE they don't actively engage a lot of false quasi truths get spread.
Cases In point some mayremeber WDFWinsider whom worked in the office. I think it was special permits or something. He talked in general terms about the department, his job and general info about the Department. He was told to stop coming on here. When he was fired for "dating his boss" he came back on here while looking for a job. He couldn't find one because had been blackmailed for talking about the department. I belive most of his discussions were professional in nature.
Big Tex hides his identity like it was a nuclear launch code. 90% of his responce s are educational in nature the other 10% are thought out responce s to posses off folks about infractions or rules.
The department appears to like it's insulation from us, and much of it has a hard time relating.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
But we know from history and private conversations that all manner of folks keep tabs on this forum and don't contribute, or if they do it isn't much. I don't remember thier names or handles but know we have a few state Reps that are members. I also know some department employees whom are sportsmen that check this place out but never post. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2017, 03:34:47 PM
:yeah:Believe it or don't. The WDFW has no say on treaty rights. Treaties are federal and the US Congress passes them. I believe they're signed into law by the President. The WDFW may be able to regulate them on bighorn sheep and goats because they were hunted out completely at the time of the drafting of the treaties - I have no idea. If you want to change the way the Yakima or any other tribe harvest animals, you've got to approach the tribal council.They could do something if they wanted to. But they obviously don't. Not change the treaty, but some sort of co-management where the Yakama tribe isn't killing more than what is sustainable. I find it hard to believe the WDFW can do nothing to control the number of deer and elk killed by the Yakama tribe, when they DO have a say in how many bighorn sheep and mountain goat they are allowed to harvest.Why do we need to attend meetings? Nowadays everything can be done online. They are always asking for input through online surveys/questionnaires, and I usually give them feedback. It even seems that at least in a couple instances, they used my suggestions, although it could have just been a coincidence that what I asked for, I got when the new regulations/seasons were published. However, they haven't yet taken me seriously when I have asked them to force the tribal hunters to follow the same rules that we do. ;)
Why would they? The have no power to affect changes in Federal treaties.
Do you even actually know how many deer and elk the Yakimas harvest each year?
WDFW has about the same amount of ability to change the treaties with tribes as they would with the Iran nuclear deal.
Realistically, the tribes can say F you to WDFW on just about everything WDFW asks as long as it falls within their treaty rights.
Post by: Humptulips on November 17, 2017, 04:26:40 PM
One or two guys setting down with the Agency with well thought out ideas have a better chance of making changes but they need that membership behind them to be listened to.
I can well understand why Department personnel do not want to go to a public meeting or come on here. Everybody has a different idea of how things should be done, many of them not well thought out and sometimes just wacky. Plus many think when they get an agency worker on the spot it's time to rake them over the coals.
When you have a problem with something you need to have a well thought out solution that doesn't create more problems or nobody is going to listen to you and it helps if you are on a first name basis with staff.
Post by: Special T on November 17, 2017, 04:45:53 PM
Public meetings and WDFWs participation in forum discussions sounds like a very democratic idea but I don't believe they have much value.Bingo
One or two guys setting down with the Agency with well thought out ideas have a better chance of making changes but they need that membership behind them to be listened to.
I can well understand why Department personnel do not want to go to a public meeting or come on here. Everybody has a different idea of how things should be done, many of them not well thought out and sometimes just wacky. Plus many think when they get an agency worker on the spot it's time to rake them over the coals.
When you have a problem with something you need to have a well thought out solution that doesn't create more problems or nobody is going to listen to you and it helps if you are on a first name basis with staff.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on November 17, 2017, 04:53:16 PM
Public meetings and WDFWs participation in forum discussions sounds like a very democratic idea but I don't believe they have much value.:yeah:
One or two guys setting down with the Agency with well thought out ideas have a better chance of making changes but they need that membership behind them to be listened to.
I can well understand why Department personnel do not want to go to a public meeting or come on here. Everybody has a different idea of how things should be done, many of them not well thought out and sometimes just wacky. Plus many think when they get an agency worker on the spot it's time to rake them over the coals.
When you have a problem with something you need to have a well thought out solution that doesn't create more problems or nobody is going to listen to you and it helps if you are on a first name basis with staff.
Post by: wolfbait on November 18, 2017, 07:48:01 AM
:yeah:No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.So...you'd get more than the 7 people who came to Spokane if you held the meeting in Republic? C'mon now.
Yes I've watched the video, thanks.
So are you saying that it's futile and it doesn't make a difference to give input.
See the list of public meetings that we didn't attend?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Below that see Public Comment on specific rule proposals will happen in February 2018??
Maybe comment in Feb?? :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe call your local wildlife bio?? :dunno: :dunno:
Ok, now I'm out.
What's the department supposed to do, go to every county in the state? I don't know of a department in any state that does that. And if they did, the process would get even longer.
People will always complain about anything. Have a meeting in Colville, well *censored* why wasn't it in Chewelah, I don't want to drive to Colville.
If I remember right it was and is WDFW who refuse to confirm wolf packs unless forced to do so, refuse to confirm wolf predation on livestock, and came out with the BS wolf plan.
Trying to put lipstick on WDFW and make them look pretty just isn't going to work, I don't see WDFW as separate from CNW, DoW etc. they appear to be one and the same.
Pushing the agenda of no hunting through the protection of predators.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 18, 2017, 08:29:16 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/nov1717b/
As has been said in the past, these type meetings are scheduled regularily on a Mon-Fri, 9 to 5 type schedule.
What would be the chances of getting meeting scheduled outside those hours, like a evening set of hours after the average work day for most ends or even a weekend day, again giving more that may want to attend but can't due to their work.
The other side of this is, if the meetings were to be scheduled during off times, how many people would really take time to attend?
If WDFW did this and it didn't increase attendance, then there would be no reason for hunters & fishers to complain about having a reasonable opportunity to attend and voice concerns.
Is there any chance that meeting times or days could be changed @bigtex, or is just set in bureaucratic stone and that's it?
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2017, 08:45:55 AM
No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.So...you'd get more than the 7 people who came to Spokane if you held the meeting in Republic? C'mon now.
Yes I've watched the video, thanks.
So are you saying that it's futile and it doesn't make a difference to give input.
See the list of public meetings that we didn't attend?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Below that see Public Comment on specific rule proposals will happen in February 2018??
Maybe comment in Feb?? :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe call your local wildlife bio?? :dunno: :dunno:
Ok, now I'm out.
I bet it would be standing room only if they held a meeting in Republic! I think the meetings in these cities are mostly a dog and pony show which are held in areas which are easy for WDFW to attend, then WDFW can say they held public meetings. Then when hunters who live hundreds of miles away don't attend they say we don't care. That's exactly what has happened. WDFW holds several meetings a year, there's no reason they all have to be in a few major cities, they could be in a few rural areas, let the WDFW drive hundreds of miles for a change, aren't they being paid to serve the public? Maybe they forgot that too? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
I honestly do not think WDFW wants to listen to folks in rural areas, they would rather listen to the praising they get in the cities! :twocents:
I'm not saying it's not important for sportsmen to be heard, if we don't get our views documented then WDFW will say hunters had no other opinion. I know I've attended many of these WDFW meetings through the years. Many groups like RMEF and MDF are focused on habitat, which is important too, but they won't tackle the politics of hunting, so it seems SCI is one of the best options for political purposes. I remember Hunter's Heritage tried to get hound hunting and trapping back and I have supported them in the past too, they seem like a good group, maybe more of us need to support them like Humptulips mentioned?
I applaud SpecialT for wanting to make a difference, you certainly have my support, I'm anxious to see what you get going, I most definitely hope you can find a way to make a difference! Maybe you can be more effective at getting involved and rallying an existing group that already has numbers? Something to consider!
The fishermen have a pretty effective group, they are much more organized, if hunters could somehow come together like the fishermen have, we could probably be more effective.
Post by: bearpaw on November 18, 2017, 09:02:55 AM
Public meetings and WDFWs participation in forum discussions sounds like a very democratic idea but I don't believe they have much value.
One or two guys setting down with the Agency with well thought out ideas have a better chance of making changes but they need that membership behind them to be listened to.
I can well understand why Department personnel do not want to go to a public meeting or come on here. Everybody has a different idea of how things should be done, many of them not well thought out and sometimes just wacky. Plus many think when they get an agency worker on the spot it's time to rake them over the coals.
When you have a problem with something you need to have a well thought out solution that doesn't create more problems or nobody is going to listen to you and it helps if you are on a first name basis with staff.
Many people are very bitter and getting more bitter every year. You are correct, I have to agree with most of your comments, thanks for offering sound advice!
Post by: Humptulips on November 18, 2017, 11:32:23 AM
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
Post by: HuntinCrazy on November 18, 2017, 07:44:43 PM
I've thought about a boycott but I figured half the guys would just take advantage of the other half not being in the woods. 20,000 plus members on here, an organized march on wdfw Olympia maybe? Don't know, just throwing out ideasIm in ......Its time we ALL stand together! We have our site to spread the word.
Post by: HuntinCrazy on November 18, 2017, 07:48:12 PM
I personally believe a big hit to their pocketbook is the only thing that will open their eyes. I would have no problem holding on to the $200 plus that I typically fork over for one year, if only I could convince about 10,000 other guys to do the same..Agreed
Post by: bigtex on November 19, 2017, 08:45:16 AM
Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
Post by: olyguy79 on November 19, 2017, 08:49:45 AM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
Post by: bigtex on November 19, 2017, 08:50:28 AM
That $2M is a drop in the bucket for WDFW.I personally believe a big hit to their pocketbook is the only thing that will open their eyes. I would have no problem holding on to the $200 plus that I typically fork over for one year, if only I could convince about 10,000 other guys to do the same..Agreed
Post by: Humptulips on November 19, 2017, 09:21:43 AM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
Post by: bigtex on November 19, 2017, 09:36:40 AM
:yeah:I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
People need to understand the roles/abilities of the F&W Commission vs. the legislature vs. the feds. Complaining to one about an issue that isn't their responsibility will go nowhere.
Post by: wolfbait on November 19, 2017, 10:27:24 AM
No it doesn't. If they want input from all hunters there should be meetings held in each corner of the state, not just the biggest cities where they get urban input.So...you'd get more than the 7 people who came to Spokane if you held the meeting in Republic? C'mon now.
Yes I've watched the video, thanks.
So are you saying that it's futile and it doesn't make a difference to give input.
See the list of public meetings that we didn't attend?
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Below that see Public Comment on specific rule proposals will happen in February 2018??
Maybe comment in Feb?? :dunno: :dunno:
Maybe call your local wildlife bio?? :dunno: :dunno:
Ok, now I'm out.
I bet it would be standing room only if they held a meeting in Republic! I think the meetings in these cities are mostly a dog and pony show which are held in areas which are easy for WDFW to attend, then WDFW can say they held public meetings. Then when hunters who live hundreds of miles away don't attend they say we don't care. That's exactly what has happened. WDFW holds several meetings a year, there's no reason they all have to be in a few major cities, they could be in a few rural areas, let the WDFW drive hundreds of miles for a change, aren't they being paid to serve the public? Maybe they forgot that too? :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:
I honestly do not think WDFW wants to listen to folks in rural areas, they would rather listen to the praising they get in the cities! :twocents:
I'm not saying it's not important for sportsmen to be heard, if we don't get our views documented then WDFW will say hunters had no other opinion. I know I've attended many of these WDFW meetings through the years. Many groups like RMEF and MDF are focused on habitat, which is important too, but they won't tackle the politics of hunting, so it seems SCI is one of the best options for political purposes. I remember Hunter's Heritage tried to get hound hunting and trapping back and I have supported them in the past too, they seem like a good group, maybe more of us need to support them like Humptulips mentioned?
I applaud SpecialT for wanting to make a difference, you certainly have my support, I'm anxious to see what you get going, I most definitely hope you can find a way to make a difference! Maybe you can be more effective at getting involved and rallying an existing group that already has numbers? Something to consider!
The fishermen have a pretty effective group, they are much more organized, if hunters could somehow come together like the fishermen have, we could probably be more effective.
:yeah: I agree 100%
Post by: KFhunter on November 19, 2017, 04:37:01 PM
we need numerous initiatives to fix it1- WDFW Enforcement has never been apart of WSP, that merger effort has failed every time
1) divorce WDFW enforcement from WSP (bring back professional game wardens)
2) send hunting revenue back to wildlife management instead of general state fund
2- All fishing and hunting license revenue goes to the wildlife fund. Been that way for almost 10 years. Nothing goes into the general fund anymore
I knew this lol :DOH:
thanks for the reminder, sometimes I have more passion than brains
Post by: KFhunter on November 19, 2017, 04:43:22 PM
The anti trapping and hound initiative killed our herds more than anything.
Post by: wolfbait on November 19, 2017, 04:59:27 PM
I don't blame WDFW for lack of deer, I think they could have helped the Elk a whole lot more in some areas though.
The anti trapping and hound initiative killed our herds more than anything.
Who do you blame for refusing to confirm wolf packs/predation on livestock and the BS wolf plan?
Post by: KFhunter on November 19, 2017, 07:49:37 PM
Who do you blame for refusing to confirm wolf packs/predation on livestock and the BS wolf plan?WDFW for sure
To be fair though the deer population was in decline before the wolves really started showing up
The Elk were on the incline prior to wolves, but now are back in decline
Post by: wolfbait on November 19, 2017, 11:53:00 PM
Who do you blame for refusing to confirm wolf packs/predation on livestock and the BS wolf plan?WDFW for sure
To be fair though the deer population was in decline before the wolves really started showing up
The Elk were on the incline prior to wolves, but now are back in decline
What is your date for "when the wolves started really showing up"?
Post by: wolfbait on November 20, 2017, 11:41:25 AM
I don't blame WDFW for lack of deer, I think they could have helped the Elk a whole lot more in some areas though.
The anti trapping and hound initiative killed our herds more than anything.
Is WDFW in charge of managing All wildlife or just predators? Seems if they were managing the deer herds etc. there would be strict predator control.
The Fish and Game of the past use to poison the coyote population when they started impacting the deer herds, I realize the methods they used would not be allowed now, today WDFW protect predators. So, what or who is responsible for the decline of the deer herds, in your honest opinion?
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 20, 2017, 11:48:55 AM
I don't blame WDFW for lack of deer, I think they could have helped the Elk a whole lot more in some areas though.
The anti trapping and hound initiative killed our herds more than anything.
They remained silent when they could've presented facts regarding the repercussions of eliminating hounds and bait. They could also have addressed the misconceptions planted by the animal rights freaks when they aired completely incorrect and inflammatory videos and "information" about hounding and baiting. This has affected our deer and elk herds considerably. It wouldn't have required them to take a stance on the initiative. Accurate information would probably have been enough. They stayed silent.
Post by: winshooter88 on November 20, 2017, 12:48:44 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 20, 2017, 12:56:38 PM
Just so you guys know, WDFW is not allowed by law to comment on any initiatives in this state. It isn't that they didn't want to they couldn't.
I don't know if that's true. I know they can't take a side on an issue but that doesn't mean they can't release facts that are pertinent. Bigtex?
Post by: Special T on November 20, 2017, 01:24:11 PM
Yes this^I don't blame WDFW for lack of deer, I think they could have helped the Elk a whole lot more in some areas though.
The anti trapping and hound initiative killed our herds more than anything.
They remained silent when they could've presented facts regarding the repercussions of eliminating hounds and bait. They could also have addressed the misconceptions planted by the animal rights freaks when they aired completely incorrect and inflammatory videos and "information" about hounding and baiting. This has affected our deer and elk herds considerably. It wouldn't have required them to take a stance on the initiative. Accurate information would probably have been enough. They stayed silent.
Because they didn't at least set the record straight providing the facts of the issue shows thier bias. The apologists like to claim they couldn't, but the fact is they just didn't want to.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: runamuk on November 20, 2017, 01:33:21 PM
We the people if the state of Washington have very thoroughly tied the hands and gagged the mouths of the very people hired to supposedly work for us.
The information gets published but it's on you the individual to acquire it. I used to be able to find a lot of it with ease, now it's been made more difficult and can cost you printing fees.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 20, 2017, 02:00:04 PM
Actually in some cases if they released some information or opinions it can be construed as taking a side which falls into illegal lobbying type behavior.
We the people if the state of Washington have very thoroughly tied the hands and gagged the mouths of the very people hired to supposedly work for us.
The information gets published but it's on you the individual to acquire it. I used to be able to find a lot of it with ease, now it's been made more difficult and can cost you printing fees.
:yeah:
How could they offer a "fact" or opinion that didn't support or contradict one side or the other?
It is a "Damned if they do, damned if they don't" situtation for them.
Honestly, the fact is, the anti's got it together, used public available resources (youtube), spent the time, energy and money to put an emoitional spin on the subject that got to and struck a cord with those many, many, middle of the road non-hunting voters, and some hunters as well, and won.
Won't be the last time you see this type material...one small piece at a time, guns, hunting, fishing, then it will just be gone.
Post by: bigtex on November 20, 2017, 08:28:02 PM
Opinions no, facts yes.Just so you guys know, WDFW is not allowed by law to comment on any initiatives in this state. It isn't that they didn't want to they couldn't.I don't know if that's true. I know they can't take a side on an issue but that doesn't mean they can't release facts that are pertinent. Bigtex?
That being said, an agency can't post an informational ad relating to an initiative. Someone would have to get the facts from the agency then fund the add saying "according to XYZ agency..."
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 06:01:28 AM
The most liberal wolf plan in the west is the direct making of the WDFW Dept and Commission, this nightmare of a plan is fully on their shoulders. From my observations in the NE (where the most wolves exist) the wolf plan is impacting our moose and caribou more than deer and elk at this point! :bash: I fully understand other factors are impacting moose and caribou too, but wolf predation doubles the impacts on these species and reduces the potential for those herds to rebound. :bash:
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 21, 2017, 06:06:32 AM
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 06:13:23 AM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
You are spot on regarding the fact that the legislature must be used to get hound hunting or trapping back. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. You also understand the process and I know you have had some successes and have offered what I would say is the best advice for trying to work with the Dept and/or the Commission. However, that does not lessen the fact that both the Commission and the Dept are almost anti-cougar hunting for the most part. They have reduced the cougar quota for boot hunters so severely at a time when we have the most robust cougar populations in modern times and possible ever in history. I will not give them a pass on the fact that they are contributing to the problem with their lack of managing cougars and wolves by boot hunting seasons which are perfectly legal for cougar statewide and for wolves in the eastern 1/3 of Washington. There are steps they could take to increase harvest on other predators as well, if they wanted to!
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 06:19:51 AM
Well I doubt Wa has ever seen a down ward turn in game animals as this. At least I have never witnessed it in my lifetime.
I have seen lower whitetail numbers in the past in the NE and they slowly rebounded, but our mule deer have been on a 50 year decline, hunting seasons were too liberal for years and now NE mule deer are for the most part in a predator pit, I don't think their numbers will ever rebound due to all the predators eating them as fast as their small numbers can reproduce. Most of our mule deer population isn't even hunted, only bucks 3 point or better can be hunted, however there is native hunting in some areas and predators are taking a heavy toll every year everywhere, our mule deer numbers seem to be in inevitable decline in the NE.
I don't know enough about other parts of WA enough to comment intelligently, I'll leave that up to others.
Post by: hunter399 on November 21, 2017, 07:44:50 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 21, 2017, 07:48:39 AM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
You are spot on regarding the fact that the legislature must be used to get hound hunting or trapping back. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. You also understand the process and I know you have had some successes and have offered what I would say is the best advice for trying to work with the Dept and/or the Commission. However, that does not lessen the fact that both the Commission and the Dept are almost anti-cougar hunting for the most part. They have reduced the cougar quota for boot hunters so severely at a time when we have the most robust cougar populations in modern times and possible ever in history. I will not give them a pass on the fact that they are contributing to the problem with their lack of managing cougars and wolves by boot hunting seasons which are perfectly legal for cougar statewide and for wolves in the eastern 1/3 of Washington. There are steps they could take to increase harvest on other predators as well, if they wanted to!
Bait and Hound hunting is gone in WA and will never come back. We will lose elk and deer baiting within the next 5 years, as well. As soon as HSUS is done in AZ, they'll be heading up here.
Post by: wolfbait on November 21, 2017, 08:40:43 AM
Look back at the ID, MT and Wyoming timeline of wolf predation, hell we are way past them with 16 years of No wolf control, and counting. Unless there isn't some sort of wolf control soon it's going to be all over but the blame game.
Which I'm sure WDF&wolves have answers for by now.
Post by: wolfbait on November 21, 2017, 11:20:42 AM
Well I doubt Wa has ever seen a down ward turn in game animals as this. At least I have never witnessed it in my lifetime.
I have seen lower whitetail numbers in the past in the NE and they slowly rebounded, but our mule deer have been on a 50 year decline, hunting seasons were too liberal for years and now NE mule deer are for the most part in a predator pit, I don't think their numbers will ever rebound due to all the predators eating them as fast as their small numbers can reproduce. Most of our mule deer population isn't even hunted, only bucks 3 point or better can be hunted, however there is native hunting in some areas and predators are taking a heavy toll every year everywhere, our mule deer numbers seem to be in inevitable decline in the NE.
I don't know enough about other parts of WA enough to comment intelligently, I'll leave that up to others.
Remember WDFW refusal to confirm wolf predation in the Methow and other areas unless forced to do so, refuse to confirm wolf packs etc.. WDFW pick and choose where they confirm wolf packs, and the NE corner was their desired choice, maybe because it borders Idaho and Canada and would seem a likely place for wolves to cross into WA., WDFW also control the numbers, which most people by now realize is total BS. If the truth were to be told, WDFW probably released wolves all over WA, they were caught many times releasing wolves in the Okanogan and then pretended for years they weren't there, and my guess is they are still doing releases today.
Remembering info. from folks in ID, Mt and Wyoming who said watch your ungulates and you can see the wolf population> they said they could see the wolves eating their way through the state.
I also think the mule deer herds are in a predator pit, last year many of the older bucks were taken, and what is left is small bucks and few does. Soon there won’t be any deer left to migrate, what will be left will be deer that live in rural towns and communities.
Biological Fantasy
In their eagerness to depict wolves as benefactors of elk, the producers of the Discovery Channel program “Wolf Battlefields” displayed their ignorance by showing footage depicting long chases of elk by wolves. The peripheral damage caused by coyotes and wolves to big game herds in winter if they are out-of-balance with their prey species cannot be ignored.
While Alaska’s biologists have finally admitted, in writing, that excessive ratios of wolves and bears are keeping moose herds in a predator pit over most of the state, many biologists in the “lower 48” continue to ignore poor juvenile deer and elk survival – the classic symptom of a predator pit.
When IDFG wildlife managers state that lack of habitat or severe winters are the major factors limiting elk and mule deer recovery, they are ignoring their own research which clearly shows that predators are responsible for more big game deaths than all other causes in the long term.
Alaska biologists admit that predators are responsible for 85 percent of all big game deaths while hunters kill only between two and seven percent of those that die. Yet Wolf biologist/activist Gordon Haber produced a computer model purporting to show that an increase from a 4 percent to a 6 percent kill by hunters would destroy Alaska’s big game herds.
Until IDFG officials produce site specific forage/carrying capacity inventories to substantiate their false claims, knowledgeable Idaho citizens must challenge every false claim and force them to “tell it like (sic) it is.”
http://idahoforwildlife.com/files/pdf/georgeDovel/The%20Outdoorsman%20No%20%205%20July%202004%20Tell%20it%20like%20it%20is.pdf
Too bad there isn't any way to hold WDF&wolves accountable.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Post by: Odell on November 21, 2017, 06:15:58 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 21, 2017, 06:29:42 PM
Post by: KFhunter on November 21, 2017, 06:38:40 PM
I care nothing for the finger pointing.
Post by: KFhunter on November 21, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
You are spot on regarding the fact that the legislature must be used to get hound hunting or trapping back. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. You also understand the process and I know you have had some successes and have offered what I would say is the best advice for trying to work with the Dept and/or the Commission. However, that does not lessen the fact that both the Commission and the Dept are almost anti-cougar hunting for the most part. They have reduced the cougar quota for boot hunters so severely at a time when we have the most robust cougar populations in modern times and possible ever in history. I will not give them a pass on the fact that they are contributing to the problem with their lack of managing cougars and wolves by boot hunting seasons which are perfectly legal for cougar statewide and for wolves in the eastern 1/3 of Washington. There are steps they could take to increase harvest on other predators as well, if they wanted to!
They could be very liberal with the hound permits, give them away like candy in areas where ungulates are being hit hardest.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 21, 2017, 07:37:33 PM
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 07:42:15 PM
Unless it is for public safety or timber damage or domestic livestock damage/killing they cannot under the current law...
I think you are wrong, but I'm fine using those as examples! :tup:
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 21, 2017, 07:45:11 PM
Unless it is for public safety or timber damage or domestic livestock damage/killing they cannot under the current law...
I think you are wrong, but I'm fine using those as examples! :tup:
Got it from here, unless there have been some changes....
http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.15.245
2(a) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the killing of black bear, cougar, bobcat, or lynx with the aid of a dog or dogs by employees or agents of county, state, or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities for the purpose of protecting livestock, domestic animals, private property, or the public safety. A dog or dogs may be used by the owner or tenant of real property consistent with a permit issued and conditioned by the director.
And I don't think this applies...at least not yet...as far as deer & elk:
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the director from issuing a permit or memorandum of understanding to a public agency, university, or scientific or educational institution for the use of a dog or dogs for the killing of black bear, cougar, or bobcat, for the protection of a state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species.
And I believe in order to get it to apply would entail the shutdown of hunting deer and elk as they would then be under the ESA protections.
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 08:12:48 PM
RCW 77.36.030
Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage—Limitations and conditions—Rules.
(1) Subject to limitations and conditions established by the commission, the owner, the owner's immediate family member, the owner's documented employee, or a tenant of real property may trap, consistent with RCW 77.15.194, or kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240.
(2) The commission shall establish the limitations and conditions of this section by rule. The rules must include:
(a) Appropriate protection for threatened or endangered species;
(b) Instances when verbal or written permission is required to kill wildlife;
(c) Species that may be killed under this section; and
(d) Requirements for the disposal of wildlife trapped or killed under this section.
(3) In establishing the limitations and conditions of this section, the commission shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.
Post by: Humptulips on November 21, 2017, 08:23:05 PM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
You are spot on regarding the fact that the legislature must be used to get hound hunting or trapping back. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. You also understand the process and I know you have had some successes and have offered what I would say is the best advice for trying to work with the Dept and/or the Commission. However, that does not lessen the fact that both the Commission and the Dept are almost anti-cougar hunting for the most part. They have reduced the cougar quota for boot hunters so severely at a time when we have the most robust cougar populations in modern times and possible ever in history. I will not give them a pass on the fact that they are contributing to the problem with their lack of managing cougars and wolves by boot hunting seasons which are perfectly legal for cougar statewide and for wolves in the eastern 1/3 of Washington. There are steps they could take to increase harvest on other predators as well, if they wanted to!
Dale,
Give the Commission a little credit. They tried to increase the cougar quotas in the NE and the Governor reversed their decision.
My question is why there has to be quotas at all. The restriction on methods inhibits the harvest enough without quotas. There are some areas without quotas so why have them anyplace?
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 08:29:28 PM
The numerous times I've worked in Oly one of the biggest issues is people complaining about non-state level issues. So if you send a letter that has spelling/grammar issues or it talks about non-state issues it isn't going to go anywhere. As an example, if you want to complain about waterfowl seasons for example, most likely it'll be a federal issue. Want to complain about a gate on USFS land, don't contact WDFW or DNR contact USFS. Etc.Unhappy with the location or timing of meetings? Here is a thought.:yeah:
F&W Commission meetings always extend into Saturday. They have open comment periods. You can comment on anything you wish. Does not have to be related to any of the other business of the Commission that day although it helps.
Make your case for meetings more friendly to the average guy. You'll have 3 minutes so don't go off on a tangent.
Can't attend? You can send in a written response as long as you want. Warning though, you better have some well thought out reasoning and short and concise will be read.
I doubt if one commenter or letter will make a difference but if they heard the same thing from a bunch of people I bet they will listen.
And many of those open comment periods have literally zero comments given.
For the written response, your correct, it better make sense. (No spelling/grammar issues or other falsehoods).
I'll just add this. We really need to get hound hunting back to control cougar but do you think it is really going to do much good to complain to the F&W Commission about that? It is out of their hands. Take that to the Legislature.
Now if you want to complain about the ban on using dogs on coyotes that is prime real estate to talk to the Commission.
Anything to do with I-655 or I-713 is fodder for the Legislature. F&W Commissions hands are tied on these issues.
You are spot on regarding the fact that the legislature must be used to get hound hunting or trapping back. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. You also understand the process and I know you have had some successes and have offered what I would say is the best advice for trying to work with the Dept and/or the Commission. However, that does not lessen the fact that both the Commission and the Dept are almost anti-cougar hunting for the most part. They have reduced the cougar quota for boot hunters so severely at a time when we have the most robust cougar populations in modern times and possible ever in history. I will not give them a pass on the fact that they are contributing to the problem with their lack of managing cougars and wolves by boot hunting seasons which are perfectly legal for cougar statewide and for wolves in the eastern 1/3 of Washington. There are steps they could take to increase harvest on other predators as well, if they wanted to!
Dale,
Give the Commission a little credit. They tried to increase the cougar quotas in the NE and the Governor reversed their decision.
My question is why there has to be quotas at all. The restriction on methods inhibits the harvest enough without quotas. There are some areas without quotas so why have them anyplace?
You are right, the commission did try to increase the cougar quota and the governor rescinded their decision, I had forgot about that, I admit maybe I was a bit too harsh in my comments about the commission, my apologies to the commission regarding that issue. :tup:
Post by: Humptulips on November 21, 2017, 08:43:25 PM
We were told to shoot a woodpecker that was damaging our home, but that was a few years ago. I found this with google: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
RCW 77.36.030
Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage—Limitations and conditions—Rules.
(1) Subject to limitations and conditions established by the commission, the owner, the owner's immediate family member, the owner's documented employee, or a tenant of real property may trap, consistent with RCW 77.15.194, or kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240.
(2) The commission shall establish the limitations and conditions of this section by rule. The rules must include:
(a) Appropriate protection for threatened or endangered species;
(b) Instances when verbal or written permission is required to kill wildlife;
(c) Species that may be killed under this section; and
(d) Requirements for the disposal of wildlife trapped or killed under this section.
(3) In establishing the limitations and conditions of this section, the commission shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.
Dale here is the WAC end of that:
WAC 220-440-060
Killing wildlife causing private property damage.
The fish and wildlife commission is authorized to classify wildlife as game, and/or as endangered species or protected wildlife, and/or as a predatory bird consistent with RCW 77.08.010 and 77.12.020. The commission is also authorized, pursuant to RCW 77.36.030, to establish the limitations and conditions on killing or trapping wildlife that is causing damage on private property. The department may authorize, pursuant to RCW 77.12.240 the killing of wildlife destroying or injuring property.
The conditions for killing wildlife vary, based primarily on the classification of the wildlife species, the imminent nature of the threat to damage private property, the type of private property damage, and the preventive and nonlethal methods employed by the person prior to the damage event. Additional conditions defined by the department may also be important, depending on individual situations. Killing wildlife to address private property damage is subject to all other state and federal laws including, but not limited to, Titles 77 RCW and 220 WAC.
(1) It is unlawful to kill protected wildlife or endangered species (as defined in RCW 77.08.010) unless authorized by commission rule or with a permit from the department, with the following additional requirements:
(a) Federally listed threatened or endangered species will require federal permits or federal authority, in addition to a state permit.
(b) All migratory birds are federally protected and may require a federal permit or federal authority, in addition to a state permit.
(2) Killing wildlife causing damage to a commercial crop or to livestock.
It is permissible to kill unclassified wildlife, predatory birds, and game animals that are in the act of damaging commercial crops or attacking livestock or other domestic animals, under the following conditions:
(a) Predatory birds (defined in RCW 77.08.010) and unclassified wildlife that are in the act of damaging commercial crops or attacking livestock or other domestic animals may be killed with the express permission of the crop, livestock, domestic animals, or property owner at any time on private property, to protect domestic animals, livestock, or commercial crops.
(b) If an owner has attempted nonlethal damage control techniques and acquires verbal or written approval from the department, they may kill an individual (one) deer or elk during the physical act of damaging commercial crops within a twelve-month period. The owner must notify the department within twenty-four hours of kill. The department will document animals harvested under this subsection and will ensure harvest is consistent with herd management objectives developed cooperatively with comanagers where available.
(c) Multiple deer or elk may be killed if they are in the act of damaging commercial crops if the owner, owner's immediate family member, agent of the owner, or owner's documented employee is issued damage prevention or kill permits and the owner has a valid, written damage prevention cooperative agreement with the department.
(d) An owner may kill an individual (one) black bear or cougar during the physical act of attacking livestock or domestic animals with or without an agreement or permit within a twelve-month period. The owner must notify the department within twenty-four hours of kill.
(3) Killing wildlife causing damage or killing wildlife to prevent private property damage.
(a) Predatory birds (as defined in RCW 77.08.010(39)), unclassified wildlife, and eastern gray squirrels may be killed by the owner of private property, owner's immediate family, agent of the owner, or the owner's documented employee with the express permission of the private real property owner at any time, to prevent private property damage on private real property.
(b) Subject to subsection (7) of this section, the following list of wildlife species may be killed by the owner of the property, owner's immediate family member, agent of the owner, owner's documented employee, or licensed hunters/trappers in a lawful manner with the express permission of the private real property owner, when causing damage to private property: Raccoon, fox, bobcat, beaver, muskrat, mink, river otter, weasel, hare, and cottontail rabbits.
(c) The department may make agreements with landowners to prevent private property damage by wildlife. The agreements may authorize permits to remove animal(s) to abate private property damage.
(d) Landowners are encouraged to allow general season hunting and trapping on their property to help minimize damage potential and concerns.
(4) Wildlife control operators may assist property owners under the conditions of their certification or permits to remove animals causing damage.
(5) Tribal members may assist property owners under the conditions of valid comanagement agreements between tribes and the department. Tribes must be in compliance with the agreements including, but not limited to, adhering to reporting requirements, possession, and harvest restrictions.
(6) Hunting licenses and/or associated tags are not required to kill wildlife under this section unless the killing is pursuant to subsections (2)(c) and (3)(b) of this section. Hunters and trappers participating in harvesting wildlife under this section must comply with provisions of each permit. Tribal members operating under subsection (5) of this section are required to meet tribal hunting license, tag, and permit requirements.
(7) Except as specifically provided in a permit from the department or a rule of the commission, people taking wildlife under this rule are subject to the laws and rules of the state.
Post by: bearpaw on November 21, 2017, 08:48:23 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on November 21, 2017, 08:57:09 PM
We were told to shoot a woodpecker that was damaging our home, but that was a few years ago. I found this with google: http://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=77.36.030
RCW 77.36.030
Trapping or killing wildlife threatening human safety or causing property damage—Limitations and conditions—Rules.
(1) Subject to limitations and conditions established by the commission, the owner, the owner's immediate family member, the owner's documented employee, or a tenant of real property may trap, consistent with RCW 77.15.194, or kill wildlife that is threatening human safety or causing property damage on that property, without the licenses required under RCW 77.32.010 or authorization from the director under RCW 77.12.240.
(2) The commission shall establish the limitations and conditions of this section by rule. The rules must include:
(a) Appropriate protection for threatened or endangered species;
(b) Instances when verbal or written permission is required to kill wildlife;
(c) Species that may be killed under this section; and
(d) Requirements for the disposal of wildlife trapped or killed under this section.
(3) In establishing the limitations and conditions of this section, the commission shall take into consideration the recommendations of the Washington state wolf conservation and management plan.
And that makes perfect sense. It was to prevent/stop damage to personal/private property.
I really don't see anything in any of these qouted that says it could authorize hound permits to kill predators that are killing non-threatened or non-endangered wildlife.
In other words, doing what predators do.
Maybe I am missing something though.... :dunno:
Post by: Humptulips on November 21, 2017, 09:04:25 PM
Well I doubt Wa has ever seen a down ward turn in game animals as this. At least I have never witnessed it in my lifetime.
I have seen lower whitetail numbers in the past in the NE and they slowly rebounded, but our mule deer have been on a 50 year decline, hunting seasons were too liberal for years and now NE mule deer are for the most part in a predator pit, I don't think their numbers will ever rebound due to all the predators eating them as fast as their small numbers can reproduce. Most of our mule deer population isn't even hunted, only bucks 3 point or better can be hunted, however there is native hunting in some areas and predators are taking a heavy toll every year everywhere, our mule deer numbers seem to be in inevitable decline in the NE.
I don't know enough about other parts of WA enough to comment intelligently, I'll leave that up to others.
Dale,
I would say ungulate levels are the worst I have ever seen now on the Peninsula. I literally go weeks at a time without seeing a deer and a large herd of elk now is a dozen.
This did not happen over night. It has been a long decline. I peg the start of the decline back when cougar were made a game animal(Remember that far back). It speeded up when the Department started limited draws for cougar tags and accelerated more when I-655 passed.
I think we are now truly in a predator pit. Don't anybody give me the habitat line. There is enough feed here for 100 times the ungulates we have now. We haven't had a bad winter in decades.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.- Sherlock Holmes.
Post by: wolfbait on November 22, 2017, 07:19:07 AM
Unless someone has enough evidence to sue whomever allegedly planted them who cares? Arguing how they got here is a distraction from what we should be doing now - managing them.
I care nothing for the finger pointing.
Yeah, I noticed that with the LaVoy murder, don't look at the past, look at this shiny new apple over here.
As for the illegal releases by WDF&wolves it is true that they will never be held accountable, it is also a part of the wolf history in WA.
Now we look at the last 15 years and the actions of WDF&wolves, how they have drug out the wolf delisting, by refusing to confirm wolves, refusing to confirm wolf predation etc., and now they can predict when WA will be ready for delisting> 2020-2021< We know that ID, MT and Wyoming had enough wolves to delist in all three states in just 6-7 years.
We have watched the change each year, and I posted it on H-W from the time I came on this site, like Humptulips stated this didn't happen over night. 2010-2011 we followed wolf kills up and down the Methow Valley, we saw where wolves drove cougars off of their kills> it was about the same time that CNW said fitkin knew about the another wolf pack up the Twisp river, but that it was too spendy to document.
Remember when the wolves drove a bunch of elk off the cliffs down by Malaga seven or so years ago? I talk to a guy the other day who lives there, he said everyone living there knew it was wolves, like the Methow they have lost a few dogs to the wolves. WDFW tried to blame it on ATVs at first, he said in the end they had to admit that yes it was wolves. Did the public ever hear about it? Was there ever any confirmed wolves over it?
Then we get into cougars that kill just for the fun of it also, 2009 we had a cat come through our place and killed 7 of the year before fawns, never ate a one. Was it this year that WDFW was going to shut down cougar hunting during the modern rifle?
A few years back when folks in the Methow were killing several cougar on the Valley floor, most if not all were not wearing collars, not that the collars matter, but WDFW knew of 52 cougars at that time on the Valley floor that were wearing collars.
http://methownet.com/grist/features/cougar_sightings.html
So WA has an out of control wolf and cougar population, and now people are leaping to their feet trying to figure out what can be done?
There is no fix without predator control.
You have been played by WDF&wolves.
Post by: elkchaser54 on November 22, 2017, 10:25:33 AM
Post by: muleracks on November 22, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
We can't undo our lack of attention to that shift in mission. Now all we can do is "give'm hell" and see if they if it has any effect.
I think mule deer have suffered from the whitetail invasion and habitat loss (winter range) far more than any increase in predators.
Post by: Vine Maples and Cottonwoo on November 22, 2017, 11:09:47 PM
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Post by: Skyvalhunter on November 23, 2017, 03:33:44 AM
Post by: wolfbait on November 23, 2017, 04:46:11 AM
Interesting Topic. A few thoughts from this peanut gallery.
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Well Put :tup:
I don't think folks want to dive that deep into the problem or reasoning, it's easier to dart around on the outside, maybe it's too overwhelming for many.
Another note on hound hunting, we have all seen how fast wolves decimate the dogs, so at this point there would have to be plenty of wolf control before I would risk any of my dogs, if I had hounds.
I tell folks to look at WDFW thirty year plan, which doesn't mention hunting, it's more in line with protecting the three legged frog etc. and corridors, -Agenda 21-2030?
Post by: Special T on November 23, 2017, 07:13:06 AM
Coyotes are open year round.It is illegal to shoot them on USFS land.
@BigTex has mentioned this several times and even posted the federal code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on November 25, 2017, 12:20:47 PM
US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) land, not USFS (Forest Service)Coyotes are open year round.It is illegal to shoot them on USFS land.
@BigTex has mentioned this several times and even posted the federal code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 09, 2018, 08:26:02 AM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/
Post by: Mr Mykiss on January 25, 2018, 01:19:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 26, 2018, 04:01:05 AM
Interesting Topic. A few thoughts from this peanut gallery.
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Well Put :tup:
I don't think folks want to dive that deep into the problem or reasoning, it's easier to dart around on the outside, maybe it's too overwhelming for many.
Another note on hound hunting, we have all seen how fast wolves decimate the dogs, so at this point there would have to be plenty of wolf control before I would risk any of my dogs, if I had hounds.
I tell folks to look at WDFW thirty year plan, which doesn't mention hunting, it's more in line with protecting the three legged frog etc. and corridors, -Agenda 21-2030?
After this topic was brought back up by Mr Mykiss I noticed your last comment, I tried to find a 30 year plan and couldn't, do you have a link?
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 26, 2018, 05:16:32 AM
US Fish and Wildlife Service (refuges) land, not USFS (Forest Service)Coyotes are open year round.It is illegal to shoot them on USFS land.
@BigTex has mentioned this several times and even posted the federal code.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Yes very big difference
Post by: wolfbait on February 06, 2018, 01:07:18 AM
Interesting Topic. A few thoughts from this peanut gallery.
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Well Put :tup:
I don't think folks want to dive that deep into the problem or reasoning, it's easier to dart around on the outside, maybe it's too overwhelming for many.
Another note on hound hunting, we have all seen how fast wolves decimate the dogs, so at this point there would have to be plenty of wolf control before I would risk any of my dogs, if I had hounds.
I tell folks to look at WDFW thirty year plan, which doesn't mention hunting, it's more in line with protecting the three legged frog etc. and corridors, -Agenda 21-2030?
After this topic was brought back up by Mr Mykiss I noticed your last comment, I tried to find a 30 year plan and couldn't, do you have a link?
Secure adequate funding for wildlife conservation
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will work closely with other state wildlife agencies and the nationwide Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to get the CWCS in the hands of state, federal and local decision-makers, business interests, the conservation community and the general public. In particular, WDFW will make copies of the CWCS available to members of Congress and federal agency administrators who will help provide the necessary funding to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.
Emphasize biodiversity conservation
The Washington Biodiversity Council is developing a proactive blueprint for Washington’s first-
ever biodiversity strategy. This 30-year vision
will include a strategy for educating the public about biodiversity and will incorporate statewide and ecoregional priorities and benchmarks for conservation of land and water (both fresh and marine).
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf
A timeline of Conservation Northwest
1989
Mitch Friedman founds the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) in Bellingham “to promote the protection of biological diversity through the conservation of large ecosystems, focusing on the greater Olympic, North and Central Cascades, and Columbia Mountain ecosystems.”
http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/milestones
Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
http://www.defenders.org/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf
Defenders of Wildlife
Working with States
Because the amount each state wildlife agency receives each year is not enough to meet all of its conservation goals, Defenders encouraged Congress to require each state to create a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, also known as a State Wildlife Action Plan. http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defenders-action
From the December 2009 Idaho Observer: Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project
by Dr. Michael Coffman
As residents of the state of Idaho, we are particularly concerned with the red areas on the below map since our homes lie there and our Congressman Walt Minnick (D-ID) has set up a “Panhandle Collaborative” with local county commissioners and a myriad of environmental groups in order to devise a forest management plan that would eliminate human use of over two million acres of national forest land in North Idaho and Montana. Local Commissioner Cornel Rasor stated that our county seat is a member of ICLEI and “sustainable development” is on the move into North Idaho.
Read More@ http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm
Washington Associations of Land Trusts
http://www.walandtrusts.org/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.pdf
Post by: huntnphool on February 06, 2018, 08:49:48 AM
Quote
WDFW will make copies of the CWCS available to members of Congress and federal agency administrators who will help provide the necessary funding to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.
Quote
The Washington Biodiversity Council is developing a proactive blueprint for Washington’s first-
ever biodiversity strategy. This 30-year vision
I've witnessed WDFW's "Action Plans" "strategy" and "visions", you'll excuse me if I'm less than enthusiastic.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 06, 2018, 09:17:30 AM
Secure
Work with
Emphasize
Developing
Strategy
Timeline
Working with (again)
Vision
and other meaningless words
It means it just another planning exercise to make everyone think something constructive is going to be the result. Nothing positive gets done for wildlife on the ground because quite frankly that takes effort and manpower diverted from worthless meetings to physically doing something. Planning on the other hand gives the impression of management and deceives everyone willing to buy into it for another cycle of 5-10 years.
Whenever you see the above words in plans beware..... :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on February 07, 2018, 08:22:38 PM
Same old stuff, new buzzword title. Whenever you see the use of the words:
Secure
Work with
Emphasize
Developing
Strategy
Timeline
Working with (again)
Vision
and other meaningless words
It means it just another planning exercise to make everyone think something constructive is going to be the result. Nothing positive gets done for wildlife on the ground because quite frankly that takes effort and manpower diverted from worthless meetings to physically doing something. Planning on the other hand gives the impression of management and deceives everyone willing to buy into it for another cycle of 5-10 years.
Whenever you see the above words in plans beware..... :twocents:
Your insight confirms my previous thoughts. :tup:
Post by: bearpaw on February 07, 2018, 08:23:43 PM
Interesting Topic. A few thoughts from this peanut gallery.
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Well Put :tup:
I don't think folks want to dive that deep into the problem or reasoning, it's easier to dart around on the outside, maybe it's too overwhelming for many.
Another note on hound hunting, we have all seen how fast wolves decimate the dogs, so at this point there would have to be plenty of wolf control before I would risk any of my dogs, if I had hounds.
I tell folks to look at WDFW thirty year plan, which doesn't mention hunting, it's more in line with protecting the three legged frog etc. and corridors, -Agenda 21-2030?
After this topic was brought back up by Mr Mykiss I noticed your last comment, I tried to find a 30 year plan and couldn't, do you have a link?
Secure adequate funding for wildlife conservation
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will work closely with other state wildlife agencies and the nationwide Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies to get the CWCS in the hands of state, federal and local decision-makers, business interests, the conservation community and the general public. In particular, WDFW will make copies of the CWCS available to members of Congress and federal agency administrators who will help provide the necessary funding to implement the Wildlife Action Plan.
Emphasize biodiversity conservation
The Washington Biodiversity Council is developing a proactive blueprint for Washington’s first-
ever biodiversity strategy. This 30-year vision
will include a strategy for educating the public about biodiversity and will incorporate statewide and ecoregional priorities and benchmarks for conservation of land and water (both fresh and marine).
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00727/cwcs_executive_summary.pdf
A timeline of Conservation Northwest
1989
Mitch Friedman founds the Greater Ecosystem Alliance (GEA) in Bellingham “to promote the protection of biological diversity through the conservation of large ecosystems, focusing on the greater Olympic, North and Central Cascades, and Columbia Mountain ecosystems.”
http://www.conservationnw.org/who-we-are/milestones
Defenders of Wildlife and the Center for Biological Diversity
http://www.defenders.org/publications/the_u.s._and_the_convention_on_biological_diversity.pdf
Defenders of Wildlife
Working with States
Because the amount each state wildlife agency receives each year is not enough to meet all of its conservation goals, Defenders encouraged Congress to require each state to create a comprehensive wildlife conservation plan, also known as a State Wildlife Action Plan. http://www.defenders.org/habitat-conservation/defenders-action
From the December 2009 Idaho Observer: Explanation of the Biodiversity Treaty and the Wildlands Project
by Dr. Michael Coffman
As residents of the state of Idaho, we are particularly concerned with the red areas on the below map since our homes lie there and our Congressman Walt Minnick (D-ID) has set up a “Panhandle Collaborative” with local county commissioners and a myriad of environmental groups in order to devise a forest management plan that would eliminate human use of over two million acres of national forest land in North Idaho and Montana. Local Commissioner Cornel Rasor stated that our county seat is a member of ICLEI and “sustainable development” is on the move into North Idaho.
Read More@ http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20091223.htm
Washington Associations of Land Trusts
http://www.walandtrusts.org/Pages/StateWildlifeActionPlan.pdf
Thanks for the links, I was able to see the connections. :tup:
Post by: no.cen.wa on April 08, 2018, 08:27:11 AM
You can add "diversity" to that list, pretty sick of seeing that word!
Post by: Wacenturion on April 10, 2018, 08:55:26 AM
Interesting Topic. A few thoughts from this peanut gallery.
20 years ago, I noticed a decline in blacktail deer, friends did too. Back then, one day while deer hunting, a friend ran into a "Cedar Cop", and hey discussed the lack of deer. The "Cop" said, "I know why you don't see deer, or deer sign. Cougars. I see them daily, while on the job, sometimes in twos and threes, cruising clear cuts, roads, etc."
As each years passes, the sign becomes less and less. Almost non-existent now.
I agree, the restrictions, both on seasons and methods are unnecessary, but, they are a fact. Why? There used to be a bounty on cougars. An old hunter told me that he hunted them in the Cavanaugh area, back in those days. Cut off the ears and turned them in for the bounty money. A long time ago.
Another fact is that habitat is often used by WDFW, as an excuse for gross mismanagement. It is also a money maker for WDFW, in the form of grants.
Regarding Meetings, Hunter Protests, etc.; Some years ago, Duck Hunters on Duckhunter.net/Washington Forum, attempted to rally at Olympia. To no avail. Does WDFW listen to sport fishermen? Ha, Ha, Ha....! Nothing that WDFW has done regarding Salmon/Steelhead has worked. Nothing. But, Bern Schenks, former WDFW Director, was fired for daring to say "Over Fishing"! This was in the 80's. They used a budget shortfall as an excuse to get rid of him. And now, the new idea of ramping up salmon hatchery production? As a friend said; "Its for the benefit of the tribes, not sportsman." Probably for the Orca's too.
Public Meetings by WDFW are nothing more than a legal formality, something they have to do, as part of their process. That is why, the many times I attended past meetings, it always seemed that the decision was already made, the meeting was just going through the motions. I'm not alone in feeling that way.
Regarding bringing back hound seasons for bear and cougar; Seriously, with the loss of access, gated roads, decommissioned roads, etc., do you really think hound hunting matters anymore? You can't get anywhere anymore. How do you expect to run hounds?
Regarding the decommissioning of roads; most of it is a senseless waste of monies. A gate, and 4 "water bars" within the first 100- 200 yards are likely sufficient. But, no, the state destroys the road for its full extent, making them discouraging at best, and impassable at worst. Many, you can not hardly walk. Stupid, and more access lost to the public. By the way, back years ago, when this road destruction started, they called them "water bars" to prevent erosion/protect habitat. It was also done, once tribal hunting was allowed, to keep access to a minimum, to protect game. And on the story goes.
The reality is that the State/WDFW plans years in advance. By the time we are told or find out, the die is cast, and we can only react. Its also very likely, and wouldn't be surprising, that the State/WDFW, are directed by the Fed's/UN/Agenda 21, to implement much that you see happening. You might find the topic of Agenda 21 interesting.
The use of predators to control game, and eliminate hunting, may not be the only possibility. Maybe people control is another facet?
By the way, Wolves; The plan to bring wolves back dates to the 40's. Aldo Leupold was involved on this plan, back in those days. Wolves may also be why you can't hunt coyotes within the Mt. Baker/Snoqualmie Forest during a portion of the year. If so, this would date the existence of wolves in that area, back to the 80's, when that restriction was enacted.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts from an old guy. Thanks
Bern was director during the 90's....just a clarification. :tup:
He was also the best director outside of Carl Crouse I worked for. Bern quietly shook up the establishment by changing the mindset. Regional managers and others at headquarters had it out for him. Commission used a slight overexpenditure to can him, while the Commission's overexpenditures, if I recall right were far worst.