Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2018, 05:16:35 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 24, 2018, 05:17:54 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 24, 2018, 05:19:30 PM
@ucwarden any thoughts?
Post by: C-Money on January 24, 2018, 05:20:21 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 24, 2018, 05:20:39 PM
other personal and professional goals
OLYMPIA — After three years as director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Dr. Jim Unsworth today informed the state Fish and Wildlife Commission that he will resign his position effective Feb. 7.
"This has been a challenging, educational, and often rewarding experience," Unsworth said in a letter to Commission Chairman Brad Smith. "It is now time for me to pursue other professional and personal goals in wildlife and natural resources management."
Smith said the Commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for WDFW, will name an interim director as soon as possible and will initiate a national search for Unsworth's replacement.
"Over the last three years, Jim has done an outstanding job of guiding the department through the complex challenges that come with managing natural resources in Washington," said Smith. "We greatly appreciate his contributions to the department and wish him well in his future endeavors."
Shortly after becoming WDFW director, Unsworth initiated a multi-year initiative to strengthen the department's relationships with communities, increase support for conservation and outdoor recreation, and help ensure WDFW programs and services meet the public's needs.
Those discussions helped launch several efforts to improve the department's customer service and responsiveness, including the simplification of fishing rules, the development of a more user-friendly website, and creation of a fishing regulation application for smartphones and other mobile devices.
Unsworth expressed his appreciation to WDFW staff members in an email message. "I have had some great experiences as director," he told them, "but by far the best part of the job has been getting to know many of you. I appreciate your professionalism, work ethic, and passion for fish and wildlife."
Unsworth joined WDFW in February 2015 after serving more than 30 years in wildlife management with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, including several years as the agency's deputy director. He previously held several management positions for the Idaho department, including wildlife bureau chief and state big game manager.
Post by: jackmaster on January 24, 2018, 05:21:29 PM
Just saw this. Can we please get someone in there who understands the predator position we're in. Please, please, please.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:and not a liberal leaf licker that bends over for inslee !!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2018, 05:27:25 PM
Post by: Old Man Yager on January 24, 2018, 05:30:46 PM
. Leaf licker. I knew this was your post before I even saw your name !! 😝😝Just saw this. Can we please get someone in there who understands the predator position we're in. Please, please, please.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:and not a liberal leaf licker that bends over for inslee !!
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 24, 2018, 05:31:56 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 24, 2018, 06:46:25 PM
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196525829.html
Post by: James on January 24, 2018, 06:52:11 PM
Post by: Curly on January 24, 2018, 06:55:26 PM
Who in their right mind would want that job?
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2018, 06:58:11 PM
I'm surprised he lasted this long.:yeah:
Why in their right mind would want that job?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2018, 06:59:16 PM
I'm surprised he lasted this long.A few years to get a check in the box and qualify for something bigger.
Why in their right mind would want that job?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on January 24, 2018, 06:59:31 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on January 24, 2018, 07:03:13 PM
Sounds like there’s some sort of sexual harassment scandal type thing going on according to Kiro radio story on this a little bit ago. Not sure if it’s related to Unsworth’s resignation, but the timing sure is coincidental.I was a little surprised when he took the job. I believe that story was just breaking when he took over. It just took this long to go to trial and get finalized.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196525829.html
Post by: X-Force on January 24, 2018, 07:06:03 PM
I'm surprised he lasted this long.
Who in their right mind would want that job?
No kidding. Between ESA, animal rights state, tribal issues, no support from hunters/fishermen... you’re between a rock and a hard spot.
Post by: bobcat on January 24, 2018, 07:16:28 PM
Sounds like there’s some sort of sexual harassment scandal type thing going on according to Kiro radio story on this a little bit ago. Not sure if it’s related to Unsworth’s resignation, but the timing sure is coincidental.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196525829.html
What seems coincidental is that a former WDFW employee was found guilty of rape today, the same day Director Unsworth resigns. Unsworth wasn't even around when that happened, but still seems odd.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196464789.html
Post by: NRA4LIFE on January 24, 2018, 07:18:04 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 24, 2018, 07:24:09 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on January 24, 2018, 07:27:08 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 24, 2018, 07:28:28 PM
He didn’t last like long.Agency director's rarely get to 5 years.
Post by: Bob33 on January 24, 2018, 07:33:15 PM
It is coincidental. Shirato was guilty and that was pretty evident from the start.Sounds like there’s some sort of sexual harassment scandal type thing going on according to Kiro radio story on this a little bit ago. Not sure if it’s related to Unsworth’s resignation, but the timing sure is coincidental.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196525829.html
What seems coincidental is that a former WDFW employee was found guilty of rape today, the same day Director Unsworth resigns. Unsworth wasn't even around when that happened, but still seems odd.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article196464789.html
Post by: jackmaster on January 24, 2018, 07:33:32 PM
90% of the job is fisheries related...Unsworth was a wildlife guy. I saw him as someone who might be able to make solid improvements but I think ultimately the system/politics were just too powerful, corrupt, and demoralizing for him to want to continue on....and with 33 years on the job, a couple of state retirement systems, stock market going gang busters...he took a look at his retirement portfolio, his upcoming work schedule/issues and came to his senses! Wouldn't be surprised if ends up back in Idaho...either as a retired guy hunting or possibly back to IDFG.perfect, Idaho is a good spot for him!!
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2018, 07:33:39 PM
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2018, 07:54:32 PM
Wonder how much cash he pocketed for the closed door Tribal meeting he had with them to set the next 10yr fisheries program?
Funny, that was my first thought as well..... :bash:
Post by: Bullkllr on January 24, 2018, 07:59:10 PM
The timing seems to suspiciously align with the puget sound chinook management plan debacle...
And he must have signed off on the $1,600,000 that went to the wolf/conflict consultant.
Post by: Bushcraft on January 24, 2018, 09:10:14 PM
Just sayin'...and that's all I'm sayin'.
;)
Post by: Green broke on January 24, 2018, 09:18:49 PM
Man your head must hurt from all the banging it into walls! You sue whine a lot about tribal issues you have no clue about...Wonder how much cash he pocketed for the closed door Tribal meeting he had with them to set the next 10yr fisheries program?
Funny, that was my first thought as well..... :bash:
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2018, 09:24:50 PM
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on January 24, 2018, 09:30:04 PM
Post by: Green broke on January 24, 2018, 10:12:44 PM
:hello:Like I said, maybe all your whining will pay off. Your ignorance is amazing. Speaks volumes about this forum....... You are the definition of "fake news". Or is that situational also? Educate your self in fisheries and law. Unsworth was not a friend of tribes, but again I don't want to include facts in your fake news whine fest.
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Post by: lokidog on January 24, 2018, 10:17:06 PM
:hello:Like I said, maybe all your whining will pay off. Your ignorance is amazing. Speaks volumes about this forum....... You are the definition of "fake news". Or is that situational also? Educate your self in fisheries and law. Unsworth was not a friend of tribes, but again I don't want to include facts in your fake news whine fest.
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Nothing fake news here, I've seen everything I have listed and nothing happens, wonderful stewards of the resource huh? Why don't you step off your victim boat and join the rest of society as an equal participant, not a special one?
Post by: Green broke on January 24, 2018, 10:18:50 PM
Right after you rip up the constitution!:hello:Like I said, maybe all your whining will pay off. Your ignorance is amazing. Speaks volumes about this forum....... You are the definition of "fake news". Or is that situational also? Educate your self in fisheries and law. Unsworth was not a friend of tribes, but again I don't want to include facts in your fake news whine fest.
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Nothing fake news here, I've seen everything I have listed and nothing happens, wonderful stewards of the resource huh? Why don't you step off your victim boat and join the rest of society as an equal participant, not a special one?
Post by: Green broke on January 24, 2018, 10:20:49 PM
You need to look in the mirror to see someone on the "victim boat". I am quite happy to exercise my rights. Might even go hunting tomorrow.:hello:Like I said, maybe all your whining will pay off. Your ignorance is amazing. Speaks volumes about this forum....... You are the definition of "fake news". Or is that situational also? Educate your self in fisheries and law. Unsworth was not a friend of tribes, but again I don't want to include facts in your fake news whine fest.
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Nothing fake news here, I've seen everything I have listed and nothing happens, wonderful stewards of the resource huh? Why don't you step off your victim boat and join the rest of society as an equal participant, not a special one?
Post by: winshooter88 on January 24, 2018, 10:32:14 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 24, 2018, 10:33:14 PM
................and some of you on here thought he was the answer. I told you so. :tup:You did. I was hoping that being from Idaho, he'd be a little better than Westport Phil. I hope it is at least someone decent to replace him.
Post by: dreamingbig on January 24, 2018, 10:52:06 PM
Also in 2017, Fish and Wildlife was chided by some conservation groups as too secret about its killing of wolves.
Where the heck did that come from?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 25, 2018, 04:36:17 AM
................and some of you on here thought he was the answer. I told you so. :tup:
I'm unsure we thought he was the answer. We just knew that Anderson wasn't.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 25, 2018, 05:00:45 AM
Post by: Forks on January 25, 2018, 06:09:57 AM
The timing seems to suspiciously align with the puget sound chinook management plan debacle...This times a bazillion. Our fisheries situation is quicksand and his lack of experience in that arena finally got him. His resignation was called for last week and now we get it. Time for a new Inslee puppet.
Post by: Southpole on January 25, 2018, 07:59:29 AM
I'm NO Unsworth fan, but do you think his hands were tied, on many issues, due to this states' Democrat/enviro administration?The timing seems to suspiciously align with the puget sound chinook management plan debacle...This times a bazillion. Our fisheries situation is quicksand and his lack of experience in that arena finally got him. His resignation was called for last week and now we get it. Time for a new Inslee puppet.
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 08:08:02 AM
I had positive thoughts because he come from Idaho, more of a hunting oriented state. I've pretty much come to realize that we are probably not going to get the type of director hunters need, the governor appoints the commission and the commission appoints the director, therefore we are going to get a director that fits their desires and policies. The next director will likely not be as good as the last two! :yike:................and some of you on here thought he was the answer. I told you so. :tup:
I'm unsure we thought he was the answer. We just knew that Anderson wasn't.
Unsworth didn't look very good last year when he testified on the requested fee increases and from what I've heard the public who were asked to comment did not give him any glowing reviews, he just hasn't been very effective in his time as director.:yeah: my thoughts as well, the legislature pretty much told him they didn't believe him at all
He might be a real nice guy, I really don't know, but that doesn't matter one way or another, it seemed like either his hands were tied or he was in over his head on quite a few issues, and that is what does matter.
Post by: KFhunter on January 25, 2018, 08:15:13 AM
Post by: Southpole on January 25, 2018, 08:19:38 AM
I think it would be impossible to work for Inslee and CNW while trying to provide reasonable hunting accommodations.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
:yeah:The timing seems to suspiciously align with the puget sound chinook management plan debacle...This times a bazillion. Our fisheries situation is quicksand and his lack of experience in that arena finally got him. His resignation was called for last week and now we get it. Time for a new Inslee puppet.
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2018, 08:36:10 AM
He might be a real nice guy, I really don't know, but that doesn't matter one way or another, it seemed like either his hands were tied or he was in over his head on quite a few issues, and that is what does matter.His hands were tied because that's how the law says it should be. The Director is not the overall decision maker of the department, that's the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Too many people think the Director makes all the decisions and calls all the shots. In most cases the Director simply manages the people in the department, the policies we all hate/love are made by the Commission.
As in point, the recent salmon decision. The department sent their proposed policy to the feds without running it through the commission, a big no-no.
Post by: LDennis24 on January 25, 2018, 08:57:29 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 25, 2018, 09:05:47 AM
Maybe the Commission is the problem. This place has been a mess for decades. They need a strong competent boss who will run things, fire those that need to be fired and duct tape the commission. But like the relationship between the Seattle City Council, the SPD and the Seattle School district, that is an impossible task to wish for.
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 09:09:13 AM
I think what needs to change is the Commission needs to be elected by the people. Not selected by the Governor. Treat like your local school board. Require people from each region of the state. :dunno: As long as Insleez keeps deciding who's on the commission nothing's gonna change.
Currently the commission must come from various areas of the state, but the governor picks them so we get commission members he is willing to approve. The problem with voting in commission members is that wildlife management becomes even more political.
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2018, 09:10:49 AM
:yeah:I think what needs to change is the Commission needs to be elected by the people. Not selected by the Governor. Treat like your local school board. Require people from each region of the state. :dunno: As long as Insleez keeps deciding who's on the commission nothing's gonna change.Currently the commission must come from various areas of the state, but the governor picks them so we get commission members he is willing to approve. The problem with voting in commission members is that wildlife management becomes even more political.
I don't see voting in the commission as a good thing.
Post by: jmscon on January 25, 2018, 10:09:47 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 25, 2018, 10:11:02 AM
How about the commission being appointed by the WDFW managers from each districtEmployees essentially appointing their bosses and decision makers???
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 25, 2018, 10:18:24 AM
How about the commission being appointed by the WDFW managers from each districtEmployees essentially appointing their bosses and decision makers???
That was an idea that came and went
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 10:21:13 AM
How about the commission being appointed by the WDFW managers from each district
I definitely wouldn't want to see that. :twocents:
Post by: LDennis24 on January 25, 2018, 10:29:00 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 25, 2018, 10:48:38 AM
Post by: WSU on January 25, 2018, 10:57:49 AM
Post by: jmscon on January 25, 2018, 11:06:58 AM
I think WDFW employees are the last people we want picking the commission. :twocents:Why, serious question
Post by: jmscon on January 25, 2018, 11:08:31 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 25, 2018, 11:12:20 AM
I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 25, 2018, 11:23:29 AM
:hello:The tribes are stopping you? When did this happen and who gave them the authority?
I'll listen more when I get to keep the same fish the tribes do, share the resource and all that BS. Oh yeah, and I don't get in trouble for killing craps of seabirds or blowing through Orca pods in my boat.
Post by: WSU on January 25, 2018, 11:28:35 AM
I think WDFW employees are the last people we want picking the commission. :twocents:Why, serious question
Many of the employees, and especially management, appear to me to be entrenched. They have used the same process, are content with the outcomes, etc. This has been true with the fisheries folks I've dealt with. I think you'd end up with more status quo than anything if you let the employees set the direction.
I'm not all that impressed with the status quo and existing bureaucracy.
Post by: NoBark on January 25, 2018, 11:41:08 AM
Post by: Bob33 on January 25, 2018, 11:46:43 AM
He is correct.I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
https://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2015/10/washington-gov-nixes-cougar-killing-plan.html (https://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2015/10/washington-gov-nixes-cougar-killing-plan.html)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 25, 2018, 11:53:52 AM
He is correct.I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
Not really. One article says that the biological staff resisted raising cougar quotas based on their data. The other says that the Gov nixed a plan to raise cougar qoutas as proposed by the WDFW Commission, not by the bio staff as JM stated.
Post by: Special T on January 25, 2018, 11:58:53 AM
I think what needs to change is the Commission needs to be elected by the people. Not selected by the Governor. Treat like your local school board. Require people from each region of the state. :dunno: As long as Insleez keeps deciding who's on the commission nothing's gonna change.I think that an election could go all wrong. Hunters make up a very small portion of the population
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on January 25, 2018, 12:01:17 PM
Semantics. The Commission's recommendation came from biologists.He is correct.I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
Not really. One article says that the biological staff resisted raising cougar quotas based on their data. The other says that the Gov nixed a plan to raise cougar qoutas as proposed by the WDFW Commission, not by the bio staff as JM stated.
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 12:04:22 PM
Semantics. The Commission's recommendation came from biologists.He is correct.I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
Not really. One article says that the biological staff resisted raising cougar quotas based on their data. The other says that the Gov nixed a plan to raise cougar qoutas as proposed by the WDFW Commission, not by the bio staff as JM stated.
Actually the commission did increase at least a few quotas, the governor removed those increases.
Post by: bobcat on January 25, 2018, 12:19:51 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 12:23:01 PM
Look at the Seattle Times article on Unsworth's resignation. Many comments by people glad he's gone becarse they want a more predator friendly director. :rolleyes:
That's why we don't want to elect commissioners!
Post by: Bushcraft on January 25, 2018, 12:30:10 PM
He might be a real nice guy, I really don't know, but that doesn't matter one way or another, it seemed like either his hands were tied or he was in over his head on quite a few issues, and that is what does matter.His hands were tied because that's how the law says it should be. The Director is not the overall decision maker of the department, that's the Fish and Wildlife Commission. Too many people think the Director makes all the decisions and calls all the shots. In most cases the Director simply manages the people in the department, the policies we all hate/love are made by the Commission.
As in point, the recent salmon decision. The department sent their proposed policy to the feds without running it through the commission, a big no-no.
Nailed it!
Post by: Bushcraft on January 25, 2018, 12:33:43 PM
Post by: B4noon on January 25, 2018, 03:10:33 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on January 25, 2018, 04:45:37 PM
Furthermore, it would be a HUGE mistake to have the populace of this state vote for the Commissioners.Given the politics in this state - it could be a positive if Commission members were elected by region/district; not a statewide vote...sort of like county prosecutors or something. Even in sportsmen friendly states like Idaho you get Governors playing politics with appointments that makes me nauseous.
Post by: Buzz2401 on January 25, 2018, 05:15:59 PM
Post by: aaronoto on January 25, 2018, 06:36:07 PM
I don't see this as a good thing. We just lost someone who for the most part wanted what we wanted but didn't have the power to get it. Now we will most likely end up with someone who will most likely be more liberal and less recreational friendly. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Tribal member get the position so that they can "work together more closely with tribes".
Better the devil you know then the devil you don't know.
Post by: Bob33 on January 25, 2018, 07:00:14 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 25, 2018, 07:02:32 PM
I hope I am wrong, but with a Democratic led Senate and House and a Democratic Governor running for the White House the new Director could be worse for hunters.
I am thinking exactly the same thing. The next could be worse than the last two!
Post by: Humptulips on January 25, 2018, 08:52:42 PM
I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
That story is misleading. The biologists recommend a harvest of 10% to 16%. If you take WDFWs cougar population estimates to be accurate, WA last year harvested 13.85% of the cougar population. Clearly within their recommendations. I'll add this is way up from previous years so even that high of a harvest is not a trend.
Additionally only 34% of cougar management areas exceed their target harvest. 55% of cougar management areas never reached their target. 11% were within the target numbers range. Assuming cougars do travel, the areas that went over target should fill in rather quickly.
So do we kill more then biologists recommend? In select areas the answer could be yes but over a one year period hardly anything anyone should worry about.
All that s assuming there are only 2000 cougar in the State. :rolleyes:
Post by: bearpaw on January 26, 2018, 03:47:21 AM
I’ve heard that the biologists tried to up the quotas on lions a couple of years ago and it got nixed by the governor. :dunno:
Unlikely what you heard is what happened
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/cougar-hunters-kill-more-than-double-recommended-guidelines/281-391510894
That story is misleading. The biologists recommend a harvest of 10% to 16%. If you take WDFWs cougar population estimates to be accurate, WA last year harvested 13.85% of the cougar population. Clearly within their recommendations. I'll add this is way up from previous years so even that high of a harvest is not a trend.
Additionally only 34% of cougar management areas exceed their target harvest. 55% of cougar management areas never reached their target. 11% were within the target numbers range. Assuming cougars do travel, the areas that went over target should fill in rather quickly.
So do we kill more then biologists recommend? In select areas the answer could be yes but over a one year period hardly anything anyone should worry about.
All that s assuming there are only 2000 cougar in the State. :rolleyes:
I've heard some WDFW people say they think there may be 3000 to 4000 cougar, the truth is that they really don't have a very good feel for what there is, if in fact we have twice as many cougar as the 2000 guestimate, which I believe there are, then we only harvested 6.925% of the cougar population! :dunno:
If you read the cougar study from Alberta they mention cases where higher percentages were harvested and the population rebounded within 2 years, they also mention up to 40% of cougar being harvested in another area, I think it was Utah, and yet the population eventually rebounded.
Post by: idahohuntr on January 26, 2018, 08:52:52 AM
Post by: Southpole on January 26, 2018, 09:11:05 AM
I know nothing about cougar management or biology - but I can't understand why harvest is so restricted for a species that is so difficult to hunt given dogs are outlawed. Of all the wildlife the state manages, cougars and coyotes are 2 species I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hunters killing them all off. For those who are far more informed on cougars...is there really a risk of hunting them to dangerously low levels if season were open all year? Or at least from fall to spring? If hunters kill 1 or 2 or 5 over their quotas...what's the harm?Survival of the cutest. If cougars were god awful, ugly, smelly, slimy creatures no one would care. But seriously, with no dogs, boot hunters obviously can't possibly keep up with thinning them out down to a reasonable number for reasons you've mentioned. Then throw in crazy low quotas and they may as well just close cougar hunting all together.
Post by: KFhunter on January 26, 2018, 09:19:57 AM
I know nothing about cougar management or biology - but I can't understand why harvest is so restricted for a species that is so difficult to hunt given dogs are outlawed. Of all the wildlife the state manages, cougars and coyotes are 2 species I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hunters killing them all off. For those who are far more informed on cougars...is there really a risk of hunting them to dangerously low levels if season were open all year? Or at least from fall to spring? If hunters kill 1 or 2 or 5 over their quotas...what's the harm?
Perhaps they need to educate us, because I can't understand it either. With our restricted harvest options we cannot possibly put a dent in the population. We could have 24/7 365 same rules as coyote and not hurt the cougar population. Not only that but cougar are one of the fastest rebounding species out there for recovery. There's been numerous studies where cougar were hunted purposefully down to low numbers to test their recovery and they found that they recover very quickly. So even if somehow boot hunters did somehow manage to kill 1000's of cougars a year or two of restriction and they'd be back, but boot hunters aren't going to kill any big numbers of cats.
Trapping is what we need if we want to cull back cougar numbers to increase deer herd numbers, although given a cats range and proclivity for keeping other cats out of their territory I think trapping would be hard presses to get any serious numbers of cats off the landscape. A successful trapper could increase the deer herd in a small area though, that what I'm hoping for. There's a chunk of state land I know of with difficult access that had a robust mule deer population, it was a small pocket of big mules, but now they're dwindled down to nothing due to cats. I found 12 mule deer carcasses with the ribs ate out in a 1/4 square mile area shed hunting in the last bit of spring snow. How many did I not find? Ever since hounds were eliminated this small pocket of mules have been going down hill. I only found 1 mule doe left this year, she was all by herself in mid September and a cat was stalking her, I almost walked on top of the cat then I busted the deer 50 yards downhill of the cat. The cat hissed at me :chuckle: I expect this might be the last year for mule deer in there.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 26, 2018, 09:31:37 AM
I know nothing about cougar management or biology - but I can't understand why harvest is so restricted for a species that is so difficult to hunt given dogs are outlawed. Of all the wildlife the state manages, cougars and coyotes are 2 species I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hunters killing them all off. For those who are far more informed on cougars...is there really a risk of hunting them to dangerously low levels if season were open all year? Or at least from fall to spring? If hunters kill 1 or 2 or 5 over their quotas...what's the harm?You can learn all about cougars here from this guy....I'm sure the hippies will.
http://www.pencol.edu/events/studium-generale-reciprocity-among-mountain-lions-0 (http://www.pencol.edu/events/studium-generale-reciprocity-among-mountain-lions-0)
Post by: Special T on January 26, 2018, 10:09:58 AM
I know nothing about cougar management or biology - but I can't understand why harvest is so restricted for a species that is so difficult to hunt given dogs are outlawed. Of all the wildlife the state manages, cougars and coyotes are 2 species I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hunters killing them all off. For those who are far more informed on cougars...is there really a risk of hunting them to dangerously low levels if season were open all year? Or at least from fall to spring? If hunters kill 1 or 2 or 5 over their quotas...what's the harm?Great points, and it highlights the idiocy of the department and thier suggested rule changes.
How many west side units never reach thier quota?
How dumb is it of the WDFW to tighten restrictions across the state when only a few gmus ever reach or surpass the quotas? It makes them look disconnected and harms thier relationship with hunters...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: James on January 26, 2018, 11:48:17 AM
Lesson here is don't make Ron mad.
Post by: Bill W on January 26, 2018, 11:56:08 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 26, 2018, 12:13:59 PM
Post by: WSU on January 26, 2018, 12:41:54 PM
Post by: Humptulips on January 26, 2018, 01:18:57 PM
I know nothing about cougar management or biology - but I can't understand why harvest is so restricted for a species that is so difficult to hunt given dogs are outlawed. Of all the wildlife the state manages, cougars and coyotes are 2 species I probably wouldn't spend a whole lot of time worrying about the hunters killing them all off. For those who are far more informed on cougars...is there really a risk of hunting them to dangerously low levels if season were open all year? Or at least from fall to spring? If hunters kill 1 or 2 or 5 over their quotas...what's the harm?Great points, and it highlights the idiocy of the department and thier suggested rule changes.
How many west side units never reach thier quota?
How dumb is it of the WDFW to tighten restrictions across the state when only a few gmus ever reach or surpass the quotas? It makes them look disconnected and harms thier relationship with hunters...
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Last year the answer was 26.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 26, 2018, 01:53:42 PM
Post by: Netminder01 on January 26, 2018, 03:34:27 PM
IMO, WDFW should be run like a business or high performing team (sport, military, etc). Identify strong leadership, create a vision that's hard to achieve, trim the fat, provide unfettered transparency, modernize and listen to the people (us) who support the brand and sport. A shared goal that's hard to achieve will ignite a passion in the outdoor community in WA who could make meaningful change.
Without leadership we believe in and will follow, our state will continue to fall behind. A state like Washington should be among the leaders in the US promoting hunting/fishing opportunities, education, technology, and tourism instead of cutting and restricting opportunities on top of poor hunter-ed funding & resources. We're not.
If only I could make the rules... I'd implement a mechanism that every two years we, the hunters and anglers vote to renew the person in this role - or vote someone else in. Similar to the GM position on the Seattle Sounders. Not a general voting but those of us who buy licenses and contribute more directly to the sport than average voters.
Who knows, it might help identify the kind of leader who'd thrive in that role but also the right kind of interaction with everyone involved not to mention yield the results we all want in modern conservation, hunting & fishing along the way.
#NetForPrez :tup:
Post by: Bob33 on January 26, 2018, 03:45:18 PM
Fishing is of far greater importance than hunting. Add in the interests of non-consumptive users, which are generally of one mind compared to the fragmented voices of hunters who often fight among themselves, and we end up too often at the bottom of the heap.
Post by: Humptulips on January 26, 2018, 05:18:37 PM
Sorry for all the thread hijacking but needed to correct my mistake.
Post by: bigmacc on January 26, 2018, 07:21:06 PM
Post by: The scout on January 26, 2018, 07:51:23 PM
Post by: KFhunter on January 27, 2018, 11:05:44 AM
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/wdfw-director-resigns-after-demands-by-wildlife-activists/281-511618916
Lesson here is don't make Ron mad.
If the activists wanted him gone....we probably won't get a better replacement
Post by: fish vacuum on January 27, 2018, 04:22:09 PM
http://www.king5.com/article/tech/science/environment/wdfw-director-resigns-after-demands-by-wildlife-activists/281-511618916
Lesson here is don't make Ron mad.
If the activists wanted him gone....we probably won't get a better replacement
Maybe. But the Ron referenced is the president of Puget Sound Anglers. It wasn't just activists who wanted him out. After the Chinook plan, a lot of us were contacting our reps and the commission to say that the director needed to pack his bags.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on January 27, 2018, 04:35:48 PM
Head over to bloodydecks and read Ron's version of events. Sounds like Unsworth was a no-show at lots of important meetings.:yeah:
No need to pour more salt on the wound, but anyone who questions why he needed to go should read what Ron Garner has posted.
Out playing at the pool while our fisheries are being lost. Not the leadership we need.
Hopefully Joe Stohr can hold down the fort for now.
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2018, 10:04:50 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2018, 10:13:06 AM
Stohr seems like a good and fair guy, he might be better than what we had, I wonder if he will apply for the position permanently?Sure, if you like Mike Cenci and also how Stohr did nothing to improve WDFW Enforcement.
Post by: WSU on January 29, 2018, 10:15:39 AM
Stohr seems like a good and fair guy, he might be better than what we had, I wonder if he will apply for the position permanently?Sure, if you like Mike Cenci and also how Stohr did nothing to improve WDFW Enforcement.
It seemed like Stohr did more to protect Cenci and crew than he did to facilitate any change.
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2018, 10:17:03 AM
ExactlyIt seemed like Stohr did more to protect Cenci and crew than he did to facilitate any change.Stohr seems like a good and fair guy, he might be better than what we had, I wonder if he will apply for the position permanently?Sure, if you like Mike Cenci and also how Stohr did nothing to improve WDFW Enforcement.
Post by: Skillet on January 29, 2018, 10:24:50 AM
You can quote me later, for better or worse.
Post by: bearpaw on January 29, 2018, 10:44:35 AM
Stohr seems like a good and fair guy, he might be better than what we had, I wonder if he will apply for the position permanently?Sure, if you like Mike Cenci and also how Stohr did nothing to improve WDFW Enforcement.
It seemed like Stohr did more to protect Cenci and crew than he did to facilitate any change.
I didn't know how he reacted to the Cenci issue. My comment was regarding interaction I've had with him.
Post by: Humptulips on January 29, 2018, 08:12:39 PM
I hate to say it, but I think the commission will view hiring a guy whose expertise in fish was second to anything else was a mistake. I predict our next director will be have a fisheries biology background and come from the middle ranks of a coastal state F&G Department. This person will be ready to deal with fisheries on Day 1, and be more than happy to let the tribes drive the bus on wildlife management.
You can quote me later, for better or worse.
There in lies the problem with a F&W Department. One or the other suffers.
Grant the divorce!
Post by: bigtex on January 29, 2018, 09:14:10 PM
Will never happen.I hate to say it, but I think the commission will view hiring a guy whose expertise in fish was second to anything else was a mistake. I predict our next director will be have a fisheries biology background and come from the middle ranks of a coastal state F&G Department. This person will be ready to deal with fisheries on Day 1, and be more than happy to let the tribes drive the bus on wildlife management.
You can quote me later, for better or worse.
There in lies the problem with a F&W Department. One or the other suffers.
Grant the divorce!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
Will never happen.I hate to say it, but I think the commission will view hiring a guy whose expertise in fish was second to anything else was a mistake. I predict our next director will be have a fisheries biology background and come from the middle ranks of a coastal state F&G Department. This person will be ready to deal with fisheries on Day 1, and be more than happy to let the tribes drive the bus on wildlife management.
You can quote me later, for better or worse.
There in lies the problem with a F&W Department. One or the other suffers.
Grant the divorce!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
unfortunately I think you are correct bigtex
Post by: bobcat on February 02, 2018, 03:16:40 PM
Post by: Man Tracker on February 02, 2018, 07:38:32 PM
Post by: As uWish on February 03, 2018, 06:49:12 AM
Post by: Special T on February 03, 2018, 06:53:03 AM
The culture in WDFW is horrible. Stohr, the HR department and the Enforcement Program reminds me of a dirty east coast police department. There has to be a change. Stohr was Schiratio's supervisor and did nothing about his behavior.Funny you framed the issue that way. I heard a rumor that Cenci started "making Book" as soon as he got here.
Nice handle... Princesses Bride?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bushcraft on February 04, 2018, 09:53:40 PM
https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-windrope-108a093
Post by: KFhunter on February 04, 2018, 09:55:36 PM
Post by: Bushcraft on February 04, 2018, 10:05:53 PM
Post by: chukarchaser on February 05, 2018, 04:57:24 PM
To see her as anything positive for hunting
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 05, 2018, 05:03:11 PM
Post by: Tbar on February 05, 2018, 08:47:13 PM
Look closer at the fine print buried at the bottom of the PR announcement and note who Stohr appointed for Deputy Director.:dunno: This is an interim position. Has she done you wrong before?
https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-windrope-108a093
Post by: PNWTO on February 06, 2018, 02:08:16 PM
Just got an email that Joe Stohr has been named acting Director of the WDFW. Not sure if that's good or bad. If he's a friend of Cenci, I'd have to say bad.
While I have not met Joe, yet, I do know his extended family fairly well.
To say they are simply anti-hunting and anti-2A would be an understatement as they are downright wacko. I doubt this will be fun for the WA sportsmen.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on February 06, 2018, 02:35:21 PM
Look closer at the fine print buried at the bottom of the PR announcement and note who Stohr appointed for Deputy Director.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/amy-windrope-108a093
I think the two degrees - one from Oregon and the other from Berkeley - say enough.
Post by: follow maggie on February 07, 2018, 11:24:43 PM
Post by: KFhunter on February 07, 2018, 11:28:26 PM
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/cad63480ace60204eae8ce4e6e454ffc0afab34c/0_147_4843_2906/master/4843.jpg?w=460&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=d20ce9f1f56d2cb08dbbce5dff669c5e)
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 08, 2018, 05:03:29 AM
Just got an email that Joe Stohr has been named acting Director of the WDFW. Not sure if that's good or bad. If he's a friend of Cenci, I'd have to say bad.
While I have not met Joe, yet, I do know his extended family fairly well.
To say they are simply anti-hunting and anti-2A would be an understatement as they are downright wacko. I doubt this will be fun for the WA sportsmen.
That is very encouraging news!!!NOT
Post by: wolfbait on February 13, 2018, 05:52:18 AM