Post by: dvolmer on July 17, 2018, 10:49:34 PM
WDFW invites public to webinar
to discuss agency long-term funding
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) has scheduled a public webinar for 7 p.m. Monday, July 23, to discuss current funding challenges and opportunities for the State of Washington to invest in fish and wildlife management and conservation of lands and habitat.
To take part in the webinar, the public should visit this link (https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8360838542216730371) — also available at wdfw.wa.gov — and follow the instructions there to register. Registration via the website is available now through Monday.
Alternatively, for those who only wish to listen in, please call +1 (415) 655-0052 after 6:45 p.m. Monday and enter code 281-297-953 to participate.
During the webinar, Nate Pamplin, WDFW policy director, will describe the work of independent consultants and the agency's Budget and Policy Advisory Group to explain the causes of a projected $30 million gap in funding faced by the department over the two-year budget cycle that begins in July 2019.
Pamplin will describe planned budget cuts and proposed funding increases that are designed to eliminate the shortfall and ensure the department has adequate funding in the future.
He said several factors have caused the shortfall, including:
Several one-time funding patches approved by lawmakers in recent years will expire soon.
WDFW revenue from the sale of recreational licenses has not kept pace with spending authorized by the Legislature for managing fish, wildlife, and their habitat.
The department still has not fully recovered from the deep cuts imposed during the recession, and license fees have not been adjusted since 2011.
To meet the challenge, the department is preparing a set of state general fund budget proposals and is exploring options for recreational license fee increases to propose to the Governor and Legislature in order to avoid reducing service to the public and to fulfill its conservation mission.
Documents describing spending and revenue proposals are available on WDFW's website at https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/development/.
Post by: 2labs on July 17, 2018, 10:55:05 PM
Post by: greenhead_killer on July 18, 2018, 01:14:14 AM
Post by: Stein on July 18, 2018, 04:48:01 AM
On the other side, if 90% of the funding comes from recreational hunters and fisherman, we should probably start calling the shots on things like commercial/sport splits and hold an equivalent amount of seats on the commission.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 18, 2018, 05:18:48 AM
Post by: elkrack on July 18, 2018, 05:29:29 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 05:32:04 AM
Oh no! Cut the service? He says that like it's a bad thing. Sounds like it is past time to cut the "service."
Post by: boneaddict on July 18, 2018, 06:06:24 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 18, 2018, 06:19:10 AM
Then they might listen
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 18, 2018, 06:28:34 AM
Post by: elkrack on July 18, 2018, 07:03:47 AM
I like it. But it will never happen. We are too self-interested and disorganized.
You are spot on but this is why the left is so successful with their policies. They are organized. Maybe we should take note! I would totally get behind a no tags for year to send a message to wdfw
Post by: Mudman on July 18, 2018, 07:10:12 AM
Post by: builtfordtough on July 18, 2018, 07:14:56 AM
Post by: syoungs on July 18, 2018, 07:54:08 AM
I would definitely take a yr off and not buy any tags.
Yep, I've already reduced what I do buy to a bear and a turkey tag. Wouldn't cause me too much heartburn to leave the guns and take a camera for a year, still get to pursue my hobby, but not feed into the beast.
Itll never happen though, I remember reading something on here awhile back about what it would take tag wise to even be noticed by wdfw, it was a staggering number.
Post by: vandeman17 on July 18, 2018, 08:11:13 AM
I would definitely take a yr off and not buy any tags.
Would be simple for me too since I already hunt out of state. Subtracting a deer tag would be easy
Post by: boneaddict on July 18, 2018, 08:24:14 AM
Post by: h20hunter on July 18, 2018, 08:29:42 AM
Post by: timberfaller on July 18, 2018, 08:32:36 AM
OH ya, don't forget we need to hire more "consultants"!! :rolleyes: :chuckle: :rolleyes:
Post by: outdooraddict on July 18, 2018, 08:35:36 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on July 18, 2018, 08:50:43 AM
I think we have the right to see a list of budget expenditures. I want to see where the cash is going exactly!!! Pensions? Wolf studies? etc. Let us see!!! Cut the crap and prove why $ is needed...
You do and can, this is how if you are serious:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/
Post by: Humptulips on July 18, 2018, 09:35:08 AM
I think we have the right to see a list of budget expenditures. I want to see where the cash is going exactly!!! Pensions? Wolf studies? etc. Let us see!!! Cut the crap and prove why $ is needed...
You do and can, this is how if you are serious:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/
That is fine but in all honesty it does not get to the point of convincing sportsmen.
What people want is some kind of guide to see where the money goes. Big Tex has posted in the past where you could look at the budget but same problem. It is just so convoluted most don't get far until their eyes glaze over.
It is a difficult thing to ask because I know how complicated things get and how overlapped things are. Just in trapping which I keep an eye on I work with 4 different sections, soon to be 5 that have responsibilities involving trapping and these peoples jobs all overlap to other things so how much money is spent on the trapping program. Good question?
I do feel however DFW could put together a paper showing a little more in depth report on where the money goes short of a full analysis of the budget but better then the pie charts they put out. With that they need to show where the money comes from to pay for these programs. Again I know they have tried with the pie charts but I think that falls short.
In short they need to do a better job of selling this to the public.
Post by: KB88 on July 18, 2018, 10:29:05 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on July 18, 2018, 10:50:40 AM
I think we have the right to see a list of budget expenditures. I want to see where the cash is going exactly!!! Pensions? Wolf studies? etc. Let us see!!! Cut the crap and prove why $ is needed...
You do and can, this is how if you are serious:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/public_disclosure/
That is fine but in all honesty it does not get to the point of convincing sportsmen.
What people want is some kind of guide to see where the money goes. Big Tex has posted in the past where you could look at the budget but same problem. It is just so convoluted most don't get far until their eyes glaze over.
It is a difficult thing to ask because I know how complicated things get and how overlapped things are. Just in trapping which I keep an eye on I work with 4 different sections, soon to be 5 that have responsibilities involving trapping and these peoples jobs all overlap to other things so how much money is spent on the trapping program. Good question?
I do feel however DFW could put together a paper showing a little more in depth report on where the money goes short of a full analysis of the budget but better then the pie charts they put out. With that they need to show where the money comes from to pay for these programs. Again I know they have tried with the pie charts but I think that falls short.
In short they need to do a better job of selling this to the public.
True, marketing and proper packaging can go a long way towards helping bring people on to your side.
I was just trying to help him by pointing him towards finding the information he was talking about, if he was really sincere about wanting to know those things.
At the very least, can get a better idea of what specific questions to follow-up with once you get the initial info from them.
Biggest challenge at times is knowing what the right questions are to ask are in order to get where you want to be.
Post by: ljsommer on July 18, 2018, 10:55:51 AM
I would rather take a year or two off, and go on a guided hunt out of state.
I keep hearing good things about Idaho... road trip? =)
Post by: Stein on July 18, 2018, 11:07:21 AM
Honestly, the fact that sportsmen don't run the show is pretty telling at how disorganized we are.
In Montana, if the hunting license goes up $3, every state legislator's phone is ringing off the hook and they fix it.
Post by: KB88 on July 18, 2018, 11:18:48 AM
I would rather take a year or two off, and go on a guided hunt out of state.
I keep hearing good things about Idaho... road trip? =)
I drive to the se corner of the state already, may as well drive across the bridge...I’m down!
Unfortunately I don’t share wdfw’s opinion on saving the butterflies, turtles and wolves. We spend more money preserving animals than humans in this state
Post by: bobcat on July 18, 2018, 11:26:27 AM
Quote
The department's proposals to avoid deep budget cuts and make targeted investments will total about $60 million. In the current proposals, about two-thirds of the requests are identified as appropriate to be funded from the state general fund, while license fees would comprise the remaining third.
The department is exploring two concepts for recreational license fee increases: either a 12-15 percent across-the-board increase on all license products, or a single annual $10 fee charged to each customer (with $3 fee charged for temporary licenses). The final amount depends on the strategic investments and the amount provisioned by the state general fund.
The department's efforts now will be to refine the budget requests and align the fund sources and amounts based on feedback heard this summer.
I don't see the cost of licenses "skyrocketing." They are saying 12 to 15%. To me that would amount to roughly $30. I'll either cough up the extra money, or eliminate a couple things to help offset the extra cost. While I don't like having to pay more, I'm also not willing to give up hunting over a $30 increase.
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2018, 11:31:29 AM
Post by: WSU on July 18, 2018, 11:39:17 AM
If WDFW wants recreational folks to foot the bill, they need to prioritize the resource accordingly and give far more of the pie to recreational fishers. If the commercials still want the bulk of the pie, they should pay the bulk of cost.
Post by: Stein on July 18, 2018, 11:45:32 AM
Recreational fishers produce three-fourths of the fishing related jobs in Washington. Recreational fishing creates over 11 times more economic value for the state than do commercial fisheries. All this while commercial fisheries harvest far more of the finite resource than recreational fisheries do. Someone is going to cry foul on the above, so here's the independent economic study: https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00464
If WDFW wants recreational folks to foot the bill, they need to prioritize the resource accordingly and give far more of the pie to recreational fishers. If the commercials still want the bulk of the pie, they should pay the bulk of cost.
:yeah:
I would throw the non-fishing/hunting public in with them since they are the ultimate consumer of the fish. It's pretty crazy that we pay the bill, the commercial fleet profits and much if not most of the fish ends up on an airplane somewhere so somebody can get quality stuff at a decent price (since they aren't paying the cost of managing the resource).
How about an initiative that says the WDFW commission is split by interest groups according to the percentage of revenue contributed with a minimum of a single seat for each interest group? Call it "Protect our waters and woods" and it should pass.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 11:52:45 AM
If you don't belong to a hunting org then join one. Specifically one that focuses on fighting for sportsmen. I've become more impressed with SCI as I've investigated which hunting orgs focus on dealing with local issues, and on protecting sportsmen as a whole.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 18, 2018, 11:55:18 AM
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 12:10:24 PM
The fisheries groups you hear about, CCA, PSA, etc., are working directly with the legislature to push for priority for the folks that pay the bills. Folks should support those organizations and push for WDFW to prioritize those that pay the bills. Those groups are part of the reason the legislature hasn’t rubber stamped the prior requests for fee increases.Not directed at any specific person.
There isn't a sportsmen's org anywhere that wouldn't take the help in wrangling issues.
This forum is a good venue to distribute information, and as a focus group to get a feel for what the pulse of sportsmen are.
"WE WONT SOLVE PROBLEMS HERE ALONE!"
I went to a Washington Waterfowlers Association meeting a while back
Good guys doing good work. They discussed the Shillapoo wildlife area that the BPA were trying to flood. I asked if anyone had reached out to Phesants forever, or any other group that uses that land... They said they needed help to do something like that... they needed a volunteer... I point this out because EVERY organization would accept some one to help inform and represent their Archery club, trap club, conservation group or what have you.
If your already doing this, Atta Boy!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 18, 2018, 12:37:00 PM
The fisheries groups you hear about, CCA, PSA, etc., are working directly with the legislature to push for priority for the folks that pay the bills. Folks should support those organizations and push for WDFW to prioritize those that pay the bills. Those groups are part of the reason the legislature hasn’t rubber stamped the prior requests for fee increases.Not directed at any specific person.
There isn't a sportsmen's org anywhere that wouldn't take the help in wrangling issues.
This forum is a good venue to distribute information, and as a focus group to get a feel for what the pulse of sportsmen are.
"WE WONT SOLVE PROBLEMS HERE ALONE!"
I went to a Washington Waterfowlers Association meeting a while back
Good guys doing good work. They discussed the Shillapoo wildlife area that the BPA were trying to flood. I asked if anyone had reached out to Phesants forever, or any other group that uses that land... They said they needed help to do something like that... they needed a volunteer... I point this out because EVERY organization would accept some one to help inform and represent their Archery club, trap club, conservation group or what have you.
If your already doing this, Atta Boy!
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
:tup:
Post by: johnnyaustin44 on July 18, 2018, 01:38:56 PM
Yeah but duck hunting too?? That’d be rough.I would definitely take a yr off and not buy any tags.
Would be simple for me too since I already hunt out of state. Subtracting a deer tag would be easy
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 01:46:32 PM
If a group would simply sue this state to bring back all the anti harassment laws that we used to have i would join again.The anti hunters in this state and others have free reign to harass the hunters and fishermen without fear of charges.These special interest groups need to be hit where it matters in the wallet.All fines related to hunting and fishing need to be put into the conservation of the land,water and fish and game of this state so they can learn that when they harass the hunters and fishermen they will be funding the activities they hate so much.
Post by: vandeman17 on July 18, 2018, 01:47:45 PM
Yeah but duck hunting too?? That’d be rough.I would definitely take a yr off and not buy any tags.
Would be simple for me too since I already hunt out of state. Subtracting a deer tag would be easy
100% but for the cause I could do it. Use the money I save on gas, shells and all that for the year and put a down payment on a duck boat :tup:
Post by: Bigshooter on July 18, 2018, 01:51:02 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/development/QuoteThe department's proposals to avoid deep budget cuts and make targeted investments will total about $60 million. In the current proposals, about two-thirds of the requests are identified as appropriate to be funded from the state general fund, while license fees would comprise the remaining third.
The department is exploring two concepts for recreational license fee increases: either a 12-15 percent across-the-board increase on all license products, or a single annual $10 fee charged to each customer (with $3 fee charged for temporary licenses). The final amount depends on the strategic investments and the amount provisioned by the state general fund.
The department's efforts now will be to refine the budget requests and align the fund sources and amounts based on feedback heard this summer.
I don't see the cost of licenses "skyrocketing." They are saying 12 to 15%. To me that would amount to roughly $30. I'll either cough up the extra money, or eliminate a couple things to help offset the extra cost. While I don't like having to pay more, I'm also not willing to give up hunting over a $30 increase.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on July 18, 2018, 02:03:54 PM
I don't think fees have increased in a few years, it doesn't bother me if they have to do a modest 10-15% increase, but I can see if they raise fees too much the result could be less. I think WDFW needs to seriously focus on making the legislature and feds pony up for all non-sporting mandates! :twocents:
Its not the increase itself that is frustrating, it is the reason that it is happening from what I believe is piss poor money management by WDFW that makes me upset.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 02:12:34 PM
I don't think fees have increased in a few years, it doesn't bother me if they have to do a modest 10-15% increase, but I can see if they raise fees too much the result could be less. I think WDFW needs to seriously focus on making the legislature and feds pony up for all non-sporting mandates! :twocents:raising our cost giving us less opp.and paying p/h to kill sick sheep and elk instead of letting the hunters of this state buy the tags for these areas just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.
The most influential group we have in this state as far as conservation goes would be in my op. is the master hunters,If we could get the master hunters to banned together and push legislation in our favor using the volunteer work that they could boycott to do so.IN OTHER WORDS NO MORE FREE WORK IF THE STATE DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR OUR VOICES. :twocents:
Post by: npaull on July 18, 2018, 02:16:24 PM
Quote
Name a hunting and fishing group that is doing enough and i'll join it.Problem is none of them are doing what needs to be done at a state level.some are at a federal level but still not enough
Sportsmen's Alliance I think is pretty good.
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2018, 02:23:25 PM
I don't think fees have increased in a few years, it doesn't bother me if they have to do a modest 10-15% increase, but I can see if they raise fees too much the result could be less. I think WDFW needs to seriously focus on making the legislature and feds pony up for all non-sporting mandates! :twocents:
Its not the increase itself that is frustrating, it is the reason that it is happening from what I believe is piss poor money management by WDFW that makes me upset.
I certainly agree that they waste our dollars (especially wolf management), they are squandering our big game herds, and I agree with the people who have said the WDFW hired a consultant that will rubber stamp their agency. But it is true there has not been an increase so I don't mind paying a little more. The public as a whole has a breaking point, if they raise fees too much they will probably take in less than if they imposed a modest increase.
I don't trust WDFW, I think a good percentage of employees (especially managers) may not even support hunting, I think their main focus is on everything more than hunting, but they have not had a fee increase so it's not unreasonable to keep the pricing up with inflation. As stated I think they need to more heavily pursue legislative and federal funding for non-sporting mandates.
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2018, 02:27:05 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 02:29:01 PM
Paying these groups with no or little return is no different than paying higher prices to hunt and or fish.We need groups that will go after these anti hunting and fishing groups for me and you when anti activities cross the lines.
For instance if damage is done to a place of business and it is done by a group the group or groups involved need to be held liable not just the people that did it in the groups interests.The anti establishment across the board destroying property and not enough is being done to curb it."YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD FROM A TURNIP BUT YOU SURE CAN FROM THE FARMER" This means you go after the groups that are pushing for it to pay for the damages. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2018, 02:37:03 PM
QuoteName a hunting and fishing group that is doing enough and i'll join it.Problem is none of them are doing what needs to be done at a state level.some are at a federal level but still not enough
Sportsmen's Alliance I think is pretty good.
I agree, SCI also does a great job as does Washingtonians on some Washington issues.
But these groups are all limited by manpower and dollars. Joining helps, complaining and doing nothing does not help anyone or any wildlife.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 02:41:03 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 02:48:26 PM
Any videos on cougar attacks on humans and the devastation it has like MADD with drinking and driving?
Videos done by these groups showing Grizzly attacks.
Videos put together of the waste of salmon and steel head after spawning how they just die and go to waste?
Videos done to show the nuisance of the seals to fisherman,boaters,etc?
No.then their not doing enough for the money. :twocents:
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 02:53:09 PM
Post by: bearpaw on July 18, 2018, 03:00:15 PM
Complaining doesn't help?I beg to differ.That;s exactly how the antis have gotten as far as they have.If you think the inner city groups that are doing a lot of damage are donating you are very wrong.These groups that keep being brought up have money interest pure and simple,It's never enough.Always we need more more more.What we need is to unite as sportsman and women and form a union.I believe this is the only way. :twocents:
I complain as much as anyone about WDFW, but I have put in my time at meetings and I have strongly supported many of the groups who support hunting. If you don't support the groups who do all the work or if you don't go to the commission meetings yourself and testify, you really have no room to complain! Only you know if that applies to you or not, but that's my thoughts on the subject. Having been involved in groups, I can tell you they all could use more volunteers and dollars to work with. Less money and less volunteers means less gets done! I will continue to support numerous groups who seem to be effective for hunters and our 2nd Amendment!
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2018, 03:03:10 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 03:04:29 PM
Until the hunting and fishing groups combine we will always be to small with too little funding to make a difference. :twocents:
BY THE WAY EVERY GROUP OUT THERE WISHES THEY WERE THE ONLY GROUP FOR THIS VERY REASON.
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2018, 03:14:53 PM
Agreed on both points. It is obvious that a few on here have no idea how much work has been and is currently being done by some groups to support hunting and defeat anti-hunting measures in Olympia.QuoteName a hunting and fishing group that is doing enough and i'll join it.Problem is none of them are doing what needs to be done at a state level.some are at a federal level but still not enough
Sportsmen's Alliance I think is pretty good.
I agree, SCI also does a great job as does Washingtonians on some Washington issues.
But these groups are all limited by manpower and dollars. Joining helps, complaining and doing nothing does not help anyone or any wildlife.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 03:17:26 PM
Are they pushing for laws to return on harassment of hunters and fishermen?The law never went away, at least not in WA.....
RCW 77.15.210 & RCW 77.15.180
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 03:20:43 PM
bigtex i will check,i brought that up using what i though certain you said in a discussion before.If wrong ok,I will check.
Post by: winshooter88 on July 18, 2018, 04:21:29 PM
Post by: bigmacc on July 18, 2018, 04:37:08 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 04:40:32 PM
Post by: gaddy on July 18, 2018, 04:59:35 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:03:58 PM
I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2018, 05:07:24 PM
One thing to watch out for in the fee increase proposal is giving WDFW the authority to raise fees every other year for cost of living, this was part of the last fee increase proposal and would mean that they could increase fees without any public comment and without going to the legislature with a new budget request. If they get this through then fees would be increased every other year pretty much automatically. You have to watch the fine print.
The problem is we're paying more for less, that's always hard to pitch to consumers.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:11:56 PM
In fact DNR should talk to wdfw about a wolf treeing one of their employees,Then wdfw should get a hold of the Gov. and give him some scientific data on the wolf population in that area and maybe push for a few tags to be sold.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:12:51 PM
You guys bring up good points that I want to address. It use to be in WA that a game warden was part law enforcement and part biologist, they played a role in biological studies, etc. Those days are gone, now a game warden is almost 100% law enforcement, and that's how it is in many states.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Now the input enforcement provides isn't so much what the limit/season should be, but rather this reg needs to be changed because it's difficult to enforce, or lets move a boundary because it's confusing, etc.
The "old school" game warden days are over. If you want to count critters all day, that's a biologist, not a game warden.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:13:23 PM
A DNR employee wasn't treed.In fact DNR should talk to wdfw about a wolf treeing one of their employees,Then wdfw should get a hold of the Gov. and give him some scientific data on the wolf population in that area and maybe push for a few tags to be sold.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 18, 2018, 05:17:36 PM
You reduce the number of fishing and game tags by 70% and Oly will lose their minds.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:22:26 PM
what was she then?I thought she was a student under dnr. authority. Semantics any way still works with what i posted. :dunno:A DNR employee wasn't treed.In fact DNR should talk to wdfw about a wolf treeing one of their employees,Then wdfw should get a hold of the Gov. and give him some scientific data on the wolf population in that area and maybe push for a few tags to be sold.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: bucksnort on July 18, 2018, 05:22:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:24:56 PM
USFSwhat was she then?A DNR employee wasn't treed.In fact DNR should talk to wdfw about a wolf treeing one of their employees,Then wdfw should get a hold of the Gov. and give him some scientific data on the wolf population in that area and maybe push for a few tags to be sold.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: KFhunter on July 18, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
Post by: WA1232 on July 18, 2018, 05:27:25 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:28:27 PM
That doesn't make any difference in what i posted. :tup: so usfs and dnr call wdfw and then they call Ensley.USFSwhat was she then?A DNR employee wasn't treed.In fact DNR should talk to wdfw about a wolf treeing one of their employees,Then wdfw should get a hold of the Gov. and give him some scientific data on the wolf population in that area and maybe push for a few tags to be sold.I often ask myself, What do the actual enforcement officers think of the policies they are to enforce. And how would they go about it differently. I know many are hunters and fishermen, worried about the future of hunting and fishing for their family and kids. I hear ( on tv ) that is why they got into the field in the first place. Would it not be wise to listen to their voices, they are the ones in the field every day. They see what is going on, on a daily basis. They have to have an opinion. If I were a manager, ( the state or commissioner or what ever ) I would surely want the opinions of those doing the work as to how to make things better, more efficient etc...This is exactly what o brought up in the other thread,Either the state is not listening to the ones that know the most or the ones that know are not advocating for the animals.Maybe in fear of retaliation from the antis in such an anti environment.If this is the case these game officers could garner a lot more support from the hunters and fishermen than they currently are receiving.We all know how things are these days,no one wants to speaj up.They will get slammed by the elites.
Post by: gaddy on July 18, 2018, 05:29:02 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:29:38 PM
I would like to see the tree hugging enviro's and so called "conservationists" have to put some skin in the game instead of those of us who want to hunt footing the bill to re-introduce animals that reduce our ability to hunt. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm just some hick that lives in the woods with too many guns. :dunno:21% of WDFW is funded by the general fund (taxes) which your tree hugging enviros pay.
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 18, 2018, 05:33:17 PM
I think WDFW will be far more successful in dissuading people from buying tags than a HW boycott would be.
Think bigger.
Huntwa is just one social media outlet. If Sportsman really were serious it would be pretty easy to spread the word and get people behind it.
Take a year off, save the money and go out of state the next year. It would cripple WDFW
It'll probably never happen as all the corporate entity's wouldn't support it.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:33:56 PM
It is not about counting critters all day, It is what is happening in the field everyday. I was a manager once, I valued every persons input as to what could be improved, what our shortfalls were and what their opinions were that would make things better. The people doing the work always had the best answers on how to improve things and make everything more efficient, cost effective and in the end result, more profitable. These guys and gals out there doing our work protecting our resources ( the actual enforcement officers ) have opinions, and I would bet, some could have solutions if someone would listen. I think this is what we used to call production meetings. No idea is off the table, lets hash it over and see if it works.That's not the job of an enforcement officer anymore though. If you want to go into a wildlife profession where you will help draft seasons/limits/etc become a biologist. If you want to be a game warden then go into enforcement. The jobs don't cross paths like they used to. That's just how it is nowadays.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:35:12 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:36:47 PM
True (used to work) nowadays ?(don't work)It is not about counting critters all day, It is what is happening in the field everyday. I was a manager once, I valued every persons input as to what could be improved, what our shortfalls were and what their opinions were that would make things better. The people doing the work always had the best answers on how to improve things and make everything more efficient, cost effective and in the end result, more profitable. These guys and gals out there doing our work protecting our resources ( the actual enforcement officers ) have opinions, and I would bet, some could have solutions if someone would listen. I think this is what we used to call production meetings. No idea is off the table, lets hash it over and see if it works.That's not the job of an enforcement officer anymore though. If you want to go into a wildlife profession where you will help draft seasons/limits/etc become a biologist. If you want to be a game warden then go into enforcement. The jobs don't cross paths like they used to. That's just how it is nowadays.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:38:02 PM
You're right it'll never happen. All of my friends hunt/fish, we all like to complain about license fees but in the end we all pony up and pay it. I have yet to have a friend who didn't buy a license simply because of the price of the license, and no I don't have rich friends. But like WA1232 said, in the end it equates to less than a tank of gas for my truck. It costs more for me to fill my F150 with gas then the big game combo is, am I going to give up hunting because of something equivalent to 1 tank of gas? No.I think WDFW will be far more successful in dissuading people from buying tags than a HW boycott would be.Think bigger.
Huntwa is just one social media outlet. If Sportsman really were serious it would be pretty easy to spread the word and get people behind it.
Take a year off, save the money and go out of state the next year. It would cripple WDFW
It'll probably never happen as all the corporate entity's wouldn't support it.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:41:30 PM
So, :yeah: We are part of that 21% and 100% of the rest. :bash: So where does that put the % for the tree huggers at again? maybe 7%Incorrect.
The federal govt and WA license holders each fund 27% of WDFW, you then have the general fund at 21%, local govts at 15% and others at 10%
Most people don't understand how much the feds contribute or just how many different entities pay into WDFW, its not just hunters and anglers.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:46:15 PM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 18, 2018, 05:48:11 PM
You're right it'll never happen. All of my friends hunt/fish, we all like to complain about license fees but in the end we all pony up and pay it. I have yet to have a friend who didn't buy a license simply because of the price of the license, and no I don't have rich friends. But like WA1232 said, in the end it equates to less than a tank of gas for my truck. It costs more for me to fill my F150 with gas then the big game combo is, am I going to give up hunting because of something equivalent to 1 tank of gas? No.I think WDFW will be far more successful in dissuading people from buying tags than a HW boycott would be.Think bigger.
Huntwa is just one social media outlet. If Sportsman really were serious it would be pretty easy to spread the word and get people behind it.
Take a year off, save the money and go out of state the next year. It would cripple WDFW
It'll probably never happen as all the corporate entity's wouldn't support it.
And that's EXACTLY what Olympia is counting on
Call their bluff
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:50:56 PM
Post by: gaddy on July 18, 2018, 05:53:45 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on July 18, 2018, 05:53:58 PM
no sir it is correct.Hunters and fishermen put in the general fund,we put in federal.we put in the bulk of the wdfw fund.the tree huggers don't put in a measurable amount at all at this time into the wdfw funding.so you must take away hunters and fishermans % that comes out of fed. and state taxes that get added in because we pay in all of them.thats why i said their 21% comes down to about 7% if you take out the hunt and fish funding from us that pay in all 3Let's see the numbers. Because with out it that's all your opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:54:31 PM
how much do you really think comes from tree hugger's out of the P/R tax?Well it's certainly not 100% hunters that contribute to it!
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:55:51 PM
Show you the numbers?my opinion?its public fact.common sense.You can't argue this with a straight face,or can you? :bash:no sir it is correct.Hunters and fishermen put in the general fund,we put in federal.we put in the bulk of the wdfw fund.the tree huggers don't put in a measurable amount at all at this time into the wdfw funding.so you must take away hunters and fishermans % that comes out of fed. and state taxes that get added in because we pay in all of them.thats why i said their 21% comes down to about 7% if you take out the hunt and fish funding from us that pay in all 3Let's see the numbers. Because with out it that's all your opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 05:56:50 PM
So are you saying their going to loose not only the license fees, but also the fuel tax revenue ? And the taxes paid on all other expenditures ?Not sure where you got that. Right now the legislature is essentially gifting WDFW $30,000,000. The legislature has said the gift ends on June 30, 2019 and WDFW has to come up with a plan to fill the gap. WDFWs plan is to tap into sales, lodging, etc taxes for two-thirds of it, and into license fees for the remaining third.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 05:58:42 PM
nope your right its not but since P/R gets i think 11% on every fire arm and so much for everything outdoors related a % does not come from tree huggers now does it?You are being arrogant again,no one said 100% of anything and no one tried to imply it,Except you that is.how much do you really think comes from tree hugger's out of the P/R tax?Well it's certainly not 100% hunters that contribute to it!
Post by: olyguy79 on July 18, 2018, 06:00:00 PM
Right back at you. You pulled 7% out of thin air. Without looking at the hard numbers you have no idea how much is federal income tax, federal oil and gas tax, federal PR funds, etc.Show you the numbers?my opinion?its public fact.common sense.You can't argue this with a straight face,or can you? :bash:no sir it is correct.Hunters and fishermen put in the general fund,we put in federal.we put in the bulk of the wdfw fund.the tree huggers don't put in a measurable amount at all at this time into the wdfw funding.so you must take away hunters and fishermans % that comes out of fed. and state taxes that get added in because we pay in all of them.thats why i said their 21% comes down to about 7% if you take out the hunt and fish funding from us that pay in all 3Let's see the numbers. Because with out it that's all your opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The fact is this, many state wildlife agencies are on welfare from the federal government. It's even more so for coastal states because of all the federal fisheries funding.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 18, 2018, 06:01:42 PM
I think westside pheasant was the only one I stopped due to price, then they closed down the release area--so price didn't matter anyways. Other things I've stopped getting are just due to the change in experience--closest razor clam beach doesn't produce anymore and don't want to drive the extra hour and a half. Close by rivers are closed, close months earlier or don't have anymore plants. The remaining open rivers are such a clown show with driftboats hitting the water at 0430, etc.You're right it'll never happen. All of my friends hunt/fish, we all like to complain about license fees but in the end we all pony up and pay it. I have yet to have a friend who didn't buy a license simply because of the price of the license, and no I don't have rich friends. But like WA1232 said, in the end it equates to less than a tank of gas for my truck. It costs more for me to fill my F150 with gas then the big game combo is, am I going to give up hunting because of something equivalent to 1 tank of gas? No.I think WDFW will be far more successful in dissuading people from buying tags than a HW boycott would be.Think bigger.
Huntwa is just one social media outlet. If Sportsman really were serious it would be pretty easy to spread the word and get people behind it.
Take a year off, save the money and go out of state the next year. It would cripple WDFW
It'll probably never happen as all the corporate entity's wouldn't support it.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:03:32 PM
Has the dept got it yet?If so then the dept. doesn't have a deficit anymore then does it? IF IT DOESN'T THEN WHY TALKS OF RAISING PRICES ON HUNTING AND FISHING?Just because they put a band aid on this doesn't mean a thing.The fact i have laid out here are fact.You act like we hunters and fishermen did not put any of that 30 million into the funding that is saving dfw for now.you make like it all comes from the only general fund tax payers in this state the tree huggers.So are you saying their going to loose not only the license fees, but also the fuel tax revenue ? And the taxes paid on all other expenditures ?Not sure where you got that. Right now the legislature is essentially gifting WDFW $30,000,000. The legislature has said the gift ends on June 30, 2019 and WDFW has to come up with a plan to fill the gap. WDFWs plan is to tap into sales, lodging, etc taxes for two-thirds of it, and into license fees for the remaining third.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:04:34 PM
How is that arrogant? Am I saying I am the best? Because that's what arrogance is. You asked how much I think non-hunters contribute to PR, I responded by saying hunters don't contribute 100% Apparently answering that question means I am "arrogant"nope your right its not but since P/R gets i think 11% on every fire arm and so much for everything outdoors related a % does not come from tree huggers now does it?You are being arrogant again,no one said 100% of anything and no one tried to imply it,Except you that is.how much do you really think comes from tree hugger's out of the P/R tax?Well it's certainly not 100% hunters that contribute to it!
There's lots of people who buy guns who don't hunt. There's people who buy boat motors who don't hunt/fish. There's birders out there who buy camo who don't hunt. But guess what, that tax still goes to PR.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:05:18 PM
yes 7% was out of thin air.It most likely is less.Right back at you. You pulled 7% out of thin air. Without looking at the hard numbers you have no idea how much is federal income tax, federal oil and gas tax, federal PR funds, etc.Show you the numbers?my opinion?its public fact.common sense.You can't argue this with a straight face,or can you? :bash:no sir it is correct.Hunters and fishermen put in the general fund,we put in federal.we put in the bulk of the wdfw fund.the tree huggers don't put in a measurable amount at all at this time into the wdfw funding.so you must take away hunters and fishermans % that comes out of fed. and state taxes that get added in because we pay in all of them.thats why i said their 21% comes down to about 7% if you take out the hunt and fish funding from us that pay in all 3Let's see the numbers. Because with out it that's all your opinion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The fact is this, many state wildlife agencies are on welfare from the federal government. It's even more so for coastal states because of all the federal fisheries funding.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:06:10 PM
Government budgets are based off the prior year. You increase or decrease from the prior year. $30,000,000 goes away July 1, 2019.Has the dept got it yet?If so then the dept. doesn't have a deficit anymore then does it? IF IT DOESN'T THEN WHY TALKS OF RAISING PRICES ON HUNTING AND FISHING?Just because they put a band aid on this doesn't mean a thing.The fact i have laid out here are fact.You act like we hunters and fishermen did not put any of that 30 million into the funding that is saving dfw for now.you make like it all comes from the only general fund tax payers in this state the tree huggers.So are you saying their going to loose not only the license fees, but also the fuel tax revenue ? And the taxes paid on all other expenditures ?Not sure where you got that. Right now the legislature is essentially gifting WDFW $30,000,000. The legislature has said the gift ends on June 30, 2019 and WDFW has to come up with a plan to fill the gap. WDFWs plan is to tap into sales, lodging, etc taxes for two-thirds of it, and into license fees for the remaining third.
Post by: gaddy on July 18, 2018, 06:09:21 PM
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:13:06 PM
Again, Thanks for your input Bigtex !!not a problem
Post by: SCRUBS on July 18, 2018, 06:16:30 PM
I would like to see the tree hugging enviro's and so called "conservationists" have to put some skin in the game instead of those of us who want to hunt footing the bill to re-introduce animals that reduce our ability to hunt. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm just some hick that lives in the woods with too many guns. :dunno:21% of WDFW is funded by the general fund (taxes) which your tree hugging enviros pay.
We contribute a portion of that 21% as well.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:18:48 PM
Post by: hunter399 on July 18, 2018, 06:21:23 PM
You can increase fees now ,it will help funding now,but as your sales decrease again,year after year, two years you will be increasing fees every year .Pretty soon it will be cheaper to hunt out of state.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:22:50 PM
Yup and so does everyone else.We contribute a portion of that 21% as well.I would like to see the tree hugging enviro's and so called "conservationists" have to put some skin in the game instead of those of us who want to hunt footing the bill to re-introduce animals that reduce our ability to hunt. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm just some hick that lives in the woods with too many guns. :dunno:21% of WDFW is funded by the general fund (taxes) which your tree hugging enviros pay.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:26:44 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:28:33 PM
RIGHT HEREI would like to see the tree hugging enviro's and so called "conservationists" have to put some skin in the game instead of those of us who want to hunt footing the bill to re-introduce animals that reduce our ability to hunt. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm just some hick that lives in the woods with too many guns. :dunno:21% of WDFW is funded by the general fund (taxes) which your tree hugging enviros pay.
Post by: bigtex on July 18, 2018, 06:41:09 PM
bigtex you are missing the obvious point,On purpose i feel at that.We know everyone that pays taxes contributes to the general fund but you said the tree hugger's pay that 21% as though we are not in that mix.You lost on that one so its best if we all just move on from that one. :tup:Show me where I say we are not in the mix. I don't see anywhere where I say only tree huggers pay into the general fund, I simply said tree huggers pay into it.
I would like to see the tree hugging enviro's and so called "conservationists" have to put some skin in the game instead of those of us who want to hunt footing the bill to re-introduce animals that reduce our ability to hunt. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm just some hick that lives in the woods with too many guns. :dunno:21% of WDFW is funded by the general fund (taxes) which your tree hugging enviros pay.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:44:04 PM
Post by: olyguy79 on July 18, 2018, 06:45:20 PM
Every tax paying citizen in WA funds WDFW, some pay more (outdoorsmen) and some pay less (those that dont contribute to PR or licenses.) But in the end, everyone pays for it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Oh Mah on July 18, 2018, 06:46:42 PM
Post by: Stein on July 18, 2018, 08:33:27 PM
Here's how you end the pissing match over what boils down to deciphering the proper use of the English language between you two.
Every tax paying citizen in WA funds WDFW, some pay more (outdoorsmen) and some pay less (those that dont contribute to PR or licenses.) But in the end, everyone pays for it.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
You said two things:
1. Every tax paying citizen funds WDFW
2. Everyone pays for it
So, those that don't pay tax don't pay. Additionally, if 90% of the population pays 15% of the cost....
On the first part, there are non tax paying people floating initiatives that pass and must be funded by WDFW. There are also the couch-surfers and New Yorkers that feel they have a voice on what happens in this state (including at least one from a fenced ranch in MT that sells tags to the highest bidder). On the second part, the parable of 12:42 comes to mind.
Maybe we can agree that hunters and fisherman are a small minority and contribute somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-90% of WDWF's budget. Count not even everything, just license fees, tags, PR and DJ fees that make their way to WA. Don't even count RMEF, DU or any other organization that picks up the pieces. Probably 10% of us contribute 90%.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 09:02:05 PM
So far from my first hand experience I would say SCI if you were to join one and had no other affiliation you belonged to. Or the Washington for Wildlife Conservation. You can join as an individual or as an organization. The WWC solely focuses on state hunting issues. I don't know all the member orga but a short list are several different SCI chapters, the Inland Empire Sportmen, Washington State Trappers association, I believe a Mule deer Foundation Chapter, Washington Waterfowl Association, Washington State Archery Association, and possibly a Sheep foundation chapter. Pretty sure the number they represent to the Department and legislature is 60K Washington sportsmen.QuoteName a hunting and fishing group that is doing enough and i'll join it.Problem is none of them are doing what needs to be done at a state level.some are at a federal level but still not enough
Sportsmen's Alliance I think is pretty good.
I don't know first hand, but the Coastal Conservation Association is a collection of fishermen orgs but they cover all coastal states for fishing. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 09:12:45 PM
Complaining doesn't help?I beg to differ.That;s exactly how the antis have gotten as far as they have.If you think the inner city groups that are doing a lot of damage are donating you are very wrong.These groups that keep being brought up have money interest pure and simple,It's never enough.Always we need more more more.What we need is to unite as sportsman and women and form a union.I believe this is the only way. :twocents:My opinion on this matter has changed some what over the last year as I've tried to dive into this.
All of the anti groups have paid staff. This goes a Loong way in organizing events and showing up to WDFW meetings. CNW, DoL, wolf haven international and others regularly show up. Same faces, all the time. Guess who only shows up when angry? Sportsmen groups.
I have had a bitter taste for national hunting orgs, so I have preferred local and state orgs. Here is the Rub as I see it between national and State orgs. National orgs like SCI, RMEF, DU, MDF, NRA have paid staff. Granted it is for the whole nation but it supplies consistancy. That consistancy buys experience of political navigation, and situational experience because many states have similar issues. Those issues teach lessons that can be taken advantage of. Local Orgs put it all back locally and have a higher vested interest in putting in their all... local on the ground Intel and experience.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Bob33 on July 18, 2018, 09:43:24 PM
I support groups in each category.
If you are looking for the perfect group it doesn't exist. All have flaws which can be seen from the sideline, and even more so when actively involved.
Supporting them does matter.
Post by: Special T on July 18, 2018, 09:49:02 PM
There are three primary types of groups in this fight: firearms rights, hunting rights, and habitat preservation. They all matter.I concur Bob33 I was just trying to address OhMah concerns because I have felt the same way in the past.
I support groups in each category.
If you are looking for the perfect group it doesn't exist. All have flaws which can be seen from the sideline, and even more so when actively involved.
Supporting them does matter.
I belong to the best Archery club in the state, Silver Arrow Bowmen (shameless plug) I've decided to help via an organization I already belonged to.
If your a Clubless, rangeless sportsmen join one, damned near anyone and put some time in.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk