Post by: jackelope on July 23, 2018, 09:04:33 AM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180723/5d8e24254d988a3961fda01360189cb2.png)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180723/54c4100e4acfb5164ee8c05b70439392.png)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180723/49a465c94f78059e7a81ba5468e80c5b.png)
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:54:03 AM
Post by: Brushcrawler on July 23, 2018, 09:55:05 AM
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:56:38 AM
Post by: Brushcrawler on July 23, 2018, 08:26:57 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/development/
(top right, click public feedback)
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 23, 2018, 09:10:21 PM
Post by: cougforester on July 23, 2018, 09:16:39 PM
Just finished the survey. It left me shaking my head.
Same. There was exactly one place to submit other ideas for funding sources or alternatives beyond what they had already identified.
Post by: Stein on July 23, 2018, 09:17:52 PM
Just finished the survey. It left me shaking my head.
Yeah, tricky ones there like salmon habitat restoration - aka kill the wetlands for millions and hope a salmon swims by someday.
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:22:56 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:32:09 PM
Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180724/f0e3a0547920dc7944abdb1d8fcaf1fb.jpg)
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:33:27 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 23, 2018, 09:44:16 PM
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:51:42 PM
Here’s my 2 cents: no more money from recreational hunters and fishers without more priority. If they want more money, deliver more product. We can catch less and have less success hunting for the same price. If they want more, their main constituents ought to get more. I’ll be delivering that message to my reps and senator.This is a good general point for sportsmen to hammer home. Nate Pamplin even acknowledged it's a bitter pill for sportsmen. I think the key will be pointing out increased opportunities that have a low impact to the departments budget.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on July 23, 2018, 09:53:31 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on July 23, 2018, 10:10:03 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on July 23, 2018, 10:17:18 PM
Post by: winshooter88 on July 24, 2018, 04:50:08 AM
Post by: X-Force on July 24, 2018, 07:15:49 AM
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 24, 2018, 07:32:07 AM
This is atypical WDFW survey, multiple answers grouped so that no matter how you answer you are supporting something that they want to push, and only one with a place to comment. When the results come out they will say that the majority of responses agree with their plans. Last year the WDFW director looked so bad when he tried to tell the natural resources committee that the public supported fee increases because the published responses were very much against a fee increase.
When you have to rank things in order of importance, and there are 5 bullet points under each topic, they always throw something good in there along with 4 others that you don't really care about.
For example, Orca Recovery, one bullet point was increase chinook salmon populations. Who wouldn't find that important?
I don't have any trust that WDFW will spend money in the most effective manner. It seems to me that instead of making difficult decisions and find a real fix for an issue, they would rather dance around it and create more work for themselves.
Post by: Henrydog on July 24, 2018, 08:07:29 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on July 24, 2018, 08:23:17 AM
Here’s my 2 cents: no more money from recreational hunters and fishers without more priority. If they want more money, deliver more product. We can catch less and have less success hunting for the same price. If they want more, their main constituents ought to get more. I’ll be delivering that message to my reps and senator.
Delivering a message to reps and senator is a start but I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. As painful as it would be because many would back out, I think the only way to get hunter's and fisherman's voices heard is to hit them in the wallet. Money talks :twocents:
Post by: WSU on July 24, 2018, 08:43:44 AM
Post by: buglebrush on July 24, 2018, 08:46:07 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 24, 2018, 09:18:55 AM
Here’s my 2 cents: no more money from recreational hunters and fishers without more priority. If they want more money, deliver more product. We can catch less and have less success hunting for the same price. If they want more, their main constituents ought to get more. I’ll be delivering that message to my reps and senator.There's a thread in the deer section showing the trends from 1997-2017...loss of 30,000 deer hunters. Will WDFW do something to reverse that or speed it up? I think I know the unfortunate answer.
Post by: WSU on July 24, 2018, 10:03:59 AM
Post by: buglebrush on July 24, 2018, 10:30:04 AM
That's a tough question. They don't have authority to delist wolves. They could change their management of other predators for sure. They also can only do so much regarding private property. Places people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
"THEY COULD CHANGE THEIR MANAGEMENT OF OTHER PREDATORS FOR SURE".
That's really all we need to know. That's what is so infuriating. It'd be one thing if we were faced with dwindling game, etc... having done all we could to fix the problem. In this case WDFW continues to do all they can to exacerbate the problem. :bash:
Post by: npaull on July 24, 2018, 10:42:24 AM
Quote
Places people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent bitching about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
Post by: X-Force on July 24, 2018, 10:55:57 AM
QuotePlaces people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent complaining about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
I agree.
Post by: buglebrush on July 24, 2018, 12:37:39 PM
QuotePlaces people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent bitching about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
Since we're talking about WDFW, how's that relevant? Feels like a misdirection to me. Oh, and much of the enormous wilderness areas of Idaho are now nearly devoid of game thanks to Wolves. Doesn't do a whole lot of good for hunting to have the land, but nothing left to hunt on it. Why can't you just admit that energy aimed at predator control is NOT MISSPENT, and is a simple thing WDFW could do that would really help?
Post by: Dhoey07 on July 24, 2018, 01:04:58 PM
QuotePlaces people used to hunt are bought up and posted. I personally can think have at least a half dozen or dozen places I used to hunt that are no longer accessible. As the population grows, that only gets worse.
Access and habitat are everything. EVERYTHING. As long as hunters are more pissed about wolves than the health of the land and their access to it, options for hunting will dwindle. Our energies are being BADLY misspent bitching about predators and ignoring the slow and inexorable loss of healthy public lands.
Are you saying the loss of public lands or that public lands are turning unhealthy?
Post by: Stein on July 24, 2018, 02:21:41 PM
I would like to see a clear attitude they are there to fight for the animals and hunters. When they at least turn in that direction I would gladly pay more.
The circus at Shillapoo is something I see where they have latitude and come down against the hands that feed them, over and over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: vandeman17 on July 24, 2018, 02:38:38 PM
They certainly have their hands tied but I would argue they don’t seem to struggle against those restraints much.
I would like to see a clear attitude they are there to fight for the animals and hunters. When they at least turn in that direction I would gladly pay more.
The circus at Shillapoo is something I see where they have latitude and come down against the hands that feed them, over and over.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have said the same thing for years. If I at least got the feeling that they were on our side and were truly trying, my feelings would be different. I know they are in a really tough spot that I wouldn't want to attempt but at the same time, I see nothing that leads me to believe their priorities are towards their paying customers.
Side note but thought it was interesting. I was in Montana this weekend scouting for elk and hear an ad on the radio that Montana fish and wildlife is putting on a weekend shindig for ladies who are either looking to get into outdoor activities or for them to improve their knowledge. They were going to have workshops, activities and all that. My first thought was "well that's pretty darn cool. Washington would never do something like that"
Post by: bigtex on July 24, 2018, 03:54:33 PM
Side note but thought it was interesting. I was in Montana this weekend scouting for elk and hear an ad on the radio that Montana fish and wildlife is putting on a weekend shindig for ladies who are either looking to get into outdoor activities or for them to improve their knowledge. They were going to have workshops, activities and all that. My first thought was "well that's pretty darn cool. Washington would never do something like that"Actually WA has had a similar event for many years.
Here's this year's press release: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jun1918a/
Post by: bigtex on July 24, 2018, 03:59:04 PM
This is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.
Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?
Post by: B4noon on July 24, 2018, 04:00:49 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on July 24, 2018, 04:14:15 PM
Side note but thought it was interesting. I was in Montana this weekend scouting for elk and hear an ad on the radio that Montana fish and wildlife is putting on a weekend shindig for ladies who are either looking to get into outdoor activities or for them to improve their knowledge. They were going to have workshops, activities and all that. My first thought was "well that's pretty darn cool. Washington would never do something like that"Actually WA has had a similar event for many years.
Here's this year's press release: https://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jun1918a/
Interesting. Guess I just never heard it advertised. Thanks Tex
Post by: Special T on July 24, 2018, 04:51:01 PM
Didn't say it was easy, but it doesn't appear that they have done any work to try. Perhaps it's time to give it a try since the feds at least appear to be interest in trying new things.... we are talking about trying to help endangered and ESA listed species.This is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.
Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on July 24, 2018, 07:05:51 PM
Didn't say it was easy, but it doesn't appear that they have done any work to try. Perhaps it's time to give it a try since the feds at least appear to be interest in trying new things.... we are talking about trying to help endangered and ESA listed species.This is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.
Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Yep, If you could see they were trying it would sure improve their image, at least on here.
In my experience it takes years of trying to get a simple change. Year after year I pester them about stuff and they say yea, will get that done and next year you start from scratch all over again.
Post by: Special T on July 24, 2018, 09:07:52 PM
I hate to lay this at your feet Big Tex, so others chime in if you have the knowlege.This is part of the governors Edict. The department thinks they may be able to squeeze some funds for.And the merganser bag limit would take years to get as it would have to also be approved by the feds. It's not a simple petition to the WDFW Commission like other non-federally managed species.
Un like pikeminnow bounties, Adding a separate bag limit for Mergansers has no operational cost. It does have a time and political cost, but considering how Wa, OR, and CA have protected salmon runs and such isn't it a win win?
Why is there no separate bag limit when all other other flyaways do? Has changing it to a separate limit been attempted? If so by whom?
I get it, it's a big deal. However salmon in some way shape or form have been ESA listed or endangered for a long time. If it is a multi year process when is the time to start? Sounds like today to me. 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk