Post by: huntnphool on August 14, 2018, 01:07:31 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
August 14, 2018
Contact: Commission office, 360-902-2267
Fish and Wildlife Commission approves budget and policy proposals
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission approved budget and policy proposals for the 2019 legislative session at a meeting Aug. 9-11 in Olympia.
The commission, a citizen panel appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), also supported the agency’s long-term funding plan, developed with the help of a broad-based advisory group.
The commission approved the department’s 2019-21 operating budget proposal, which includes a request of more than $30 million to preserve the existing services WDFW provides and an additional $28.2 million to provide new or improved services, such as enhanced fishing and hunting opportunities and conservation work.
WDFW’s budget request would come from primarily state general funds augmented by a small recreational license fee increase. Commissioners gave the OK for the department to pursue during the upcoming legislative session an increase of 5 percent across-the-board on recreational fishing and hunting license fees.
The department’s presentation on its budget and policy proposals can be found on the commission webpage at https://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2018/08/agenda_aug0918.html.
In other business, the commission approved two land transactions, including:
A donation of 94 acres to the department in Whitman County. Pheasants Forever is donating the land, which is adjacent to WDFW’s Revere Wildlife Area. Native grassland will be restored on the property, which supports mule deer, raptors, and game birds such as pheasants and quail.
The transfer of the Wiley Slough Pump Station to Skagit County. WDFW will transfer ownership, maintenance, and operations of the pump station, located in the Skagit Wildlife Area. The department used the pump station during a habitat restoration project.
The commission also heard an update from WDFW staff on wolf conservation and management, including the process for developing a post-delisting wolf conservation management plan. During the discussion, commissioners advised the department against changing its method for sharing information on the location of wolves with ranchers during the current grazing season.
Additionally, WDFW staff presented an overview of seals and sea lions in Washington and discussed the implications of recently proposed federal legislation to amend the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Commissioners voiced support for efforts to provide fish and wildlife managers greater flexibility in the management of seal and sea lion predation on salmon stocks.
Post by: huntnphool on August 14, 2018, 01:09:36 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on August 14, 2018, 01:27:03 PM
What a crock..........just keep kicking the can down the road.
Post by: Special T on August 14, 2018, 01:29:10 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: vandeman17 on August 14, 2018, 01:32:19 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 14, 2018, 01:38:43 PM
They didn't have any answers last time of what the requested increase was going to go to and were denied an increase.
Looking forward to what they say they are going to provide for the additional money.
Post by: Widgeondeke on August 14, 2018, 01:40:29 PM
Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
Post by: Rainier10 on August 14, 2018, 01:42:11 PM
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
Post by: huntnphool on August 14, 2018, 01:52:17 PM
Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
:tup:
Here is a link to the thread that was talking about the $30,000,000 shortfall that was coming up. I think that this increase request has more to do with this shortfall and needing to come up with funding just to keep doing what they have been doing and not really providing anything new.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
So is this a case of knowing they need $30m, are asking for $60m, hoping that the $30m is the negotiated compromise?
Post by: Rainier10 on August 14, 2018, 02:02:25 PM
I'm not sure. Hopefully @bigtex weighs in on this one. He started the other thread that said the shortfall was coming. This will be a fun one to follow for sure. Really looking forward to the explanation of what it is for and what we are going to get for it.Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
:tup:Here is a link to the thread that was talking about the $30,000,000 shortfall that was coming up. I think that this increase request has more to do with this shortfall and needing to come up with funding just to keep doing what they have been doing and not really providing anything new.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
So is this a case of knowing they need $30m, are asking for $60m, hoping that the $30m is the negotiated compromise?
I do think that should get more money from the general fund. They are tasked with a bunch of extra stuff imposed by and benefiting the non hunting/non license purchasing public. That stuff costs money and shouldn't solely be the burden of license purchasing sportsman.
Post by: huntnphool on August 14, 2018, 02:18:40 PM
I'm not sure. Hopefully @bigtex weighs in on this one. He started the other thread that said the shortfall was coming. This will be a fun one to follow for sure. Really looking forward to the explanation of what it is for and what we are going to get for it.Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
:tup:Here is a link to the thread that was talking about the $30,000,000 shortfall that was coming up. I think that this increase request has more to do with this shortfall and needing to come up with funding just to keep doing what they have been doing and not really providing anything new.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
So is this a case of knowing they need $30m, are asking for $60m, hoping that the $30m is the negotiated compromise?
I do think that should get more money from the general fund. They are tasked with a bunch of extra stuff imposed by and benefiting the non hunting/non license purchasing public. That stuff costs money and shouldn't solely be the burden of license purchasing sportsman.
:tup:
Post by: Rainier10 on August 14, 2018, 02:52:11 PM
Post by: B4noon on August 14, 2018, 02:58:12 PM
Post by: wolfbait on August 14, 2018, 03:43:43 PM
Post by: jstone on August 14, 2018, 04:53:02 PM
Post by: jstone on August 14, 2018, 04:53:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 14, 2018, 05:04:01 PM
Post by: bigtex on August 14, 2018, 09:55:05 PM
So there's two issues at hand:I'm not sure. Hopefully @bigtex weighs in on this one. He started the other thread that said the shortfall was coming. This will be a fun one to follow for sure. Really looking forward to the explanation of what it is for and what we are going to get for it.Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
:tup:Here is a link to the thread that was talking about the $30,000,000 shortfall that was coming up. I think that this increase request has more to do with this shortfall and needing to come up with funding just to keep doing what they have been doing and not really providing anything new.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
So is this a case of knowing they need $30m, are asking for $60m, hoping that the $30m is the negotiated compromise?
I do think that should get more money from the general fund. They are tasked with a bunch of extra stuff imposed by and benefiting the non hunting/non license purchasing public. That stuff costs money and shouldn't solely be the burden of license purchasing sportsman.
1) We all know WDFWs budget has been decreasing, especially the general fund (tax) money since the "great recession years
2) For 2017-19 the legislature essentially gave WDFW a one-time gift of $30 million and said to fix their problems.
The $30 million request mentioned in the press release essentially takes the place of the one-time gift from the legislature. The $28.2 million is to try and restore services/create new services that went away during the recession years.
Post by: buglebrush on August 14, 2018, 10:06:05 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 14, 2018, 10:57:43 PM
So there's two issues at hand:I'm not sure. Hopefully @bigtex weighs in on this one. He started the other thread that said the shortfall was coming. This will be a fun one to follow for sure. Really looking forward to the explanation of what it is for and what we are going to get for it.Almost doubled their budget....and how will we as hunters/fishermen benefit from this budget increase??? Oh that’s right, a 5% increase in our license fees.
Actually they only doubled their request for additional funds. The operating cost for 2017-19 is $437,600,000
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/
:tup:Here is a link to the thread that was talking about the $30,000,000 shortfall that was coming up. I think that this increase request has more to do with this shortfall and needing to come up with funding just to keep doing what they have been doing and not really providing anything new.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,229244.0.html
So is this a case of knowing they need $30m, are asking for $60m, hoping that the $30m is the negotiated compromise?
I do think that should get more money from the general fund. They are tasked with a bunch of extra stuff imposed by and benefiting the non hunting/non license purchasing public. That stuff costs money and shouldn't solely be the burden of license purchasing sportsman.
1) We all know WDFWs budget has been decreasing, especially the general fund (tax) money since the "great recession years
2) For 2017-19 the legislature essentially gave WDFW a one-time gift of $30 million and said to fix their problems.
The $30 million request mentioned in the press release essentially takes the place of the one-time gift from the legislature. The $28.2 million is to try and restore services/create new services that went away during the recession years.
Thoughts?
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2018, 09:30:46 PM
Post by: pd on August 15, 2018, 09:41:20 PM
I'm super excited for the new "quality doe" tag opportunities for only $13 a chance. Just a rumor at this point.
I have to ask: How do you measure a "quality" doe from a "general" doe? If you can't count points, then.......?
Post by: Stein on August 15, 2018, 09:59:48 PM
I'm super excited for the new "quality doe" tag opportunities for only $13 a chance. Just a rumor at this point.
I have to ask: How do you measure a "quality" doe from a "general" doe? If you can't count points, then.......?
It costs more.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 16, 2018, 05:20:33 AM
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 05:12:52 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/
August 21, 2018
Contact: Donny Martorello, 360-902-2521
Bruce Botka, 360-902-2262
Judge issues temporary restraining order prohibiting Togo lethal removal
OLYMPIA – A Thurston County Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order Aug. 20 that prohibits the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) from lethally removing one or more wolves from the Togo pack in northern Ferry County.
Earlier in the day, WDFW Director Kelly Susewind had authorized the staff to take lethal action in response to multiple confirmed livestock depredations by the pack since last November, including three confirmed incidents in the last 30 days.
Judge Chris Lanese granted the restraining order sought by the Center for Biological Diversity and Cascadia Wildlands, which filed the request for injunction following Susewind's authorization. The judge said the plaintiffs' complaint met the criteria for a temporary restraining order under the state Administrative Procedures Act.
Lanese told WDFW and the plaintiffs to return to court Aug. 31 for a hearing on a preliminary injunction to determine whether to replace the restraining order with a longer-lasting court order.
In announcing his decision, Lanese specified that the ruling applied only to the Togo lethal removal decision.
Donny Martorello, WDFW wolf policy lead, said WDFW staff would continue to work with livestock producers to deploy non-lethal deterrents to help protect their cattle.
Monday's ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by the environmental groups within the terms of a court order earlier this year. The order requires WDFW to provide a minimum of eight business hours' notice from the time of the director's authorization to the start of a lethal removal action.
Detailed information about the Togo pack and its depredation history is available online at https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/updates.php.
Post by: KFhunter on August 21, 2018, 05:48:28 PM
Eventually they'll get them cows off public (and private) lands.
Post by: huntnphool on August 21, 2018, 10:26:09 PM
Post by: buglebrush on August 22, 2018, 08:20:19 AM
Yeah, and there are still those on this site that believe we need to hurry up with 15 BP's so we can hunt them. :chuckle:
:yeah:. Especially since we already have more than 15 breeding pairs. WDFW will probably never admit that there's 15.
Post by: huntnphool on August 28, 2018, 09:00:24 PM
Quote
NEWS RELEASE
Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/
Aug. 28, 2018
Contact: Commission office, 360-902-2267
Fish and Wildlife Commission revises proposed license fee increase
OLYMPIA – The Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission is proposing a 15-percent boost in recreational hunting and fishing license fees for 2019, with caps on the increase for people who buy multiple licenses in "bundled" packages.
The commission, a citizen board appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), will include the recommendation with other proposals designed to eliminate a $31 million gap between projected revenue and expenses during the two-year state budget cycle that begins next July.
The commissioners voted on Monday (Aug. 27) to replace an earlier 5-percent proposed increase with the 15-percent proposal. To cushion the impact on people who buy multiple hunting and fishing licenses, the commission would limit the maximum increase for bundled packages to $7 for fishing and $15 for hunting. For example, WDFW sells multiple fishing licenses in the "Fish Washington" package and plans to create additional value packages to hold down license costs for avid recreationists.
The commission's action came after 15 conservationists and outdoor recreation advocates who serve on a WDFW budget and policy advisory group expressed concern that the 5-percent increase approved by commissioners on Aug. 10 would not have contributed enough revenue to close the funding shortfall.
The revenue generated by a 5-percent boost "is far less than just the effect of inflation since the last (2011) fee increase and we fear will be frowned upon by legislators and force the department into cuts that will harm our interests and the state's natural resources," they wrote.
"The commission never likes to propose fee increases, but WDFW needs better funding to meet public expectations and ongoing legal requirements," Chairman Brad Smith said after Monday's decision. "Knowing we have the support of key recreation and conservation leaders enabled us to improve the balance of our funding request between general tax dollars and revenue from license sales."
With Monday's revision, the commission directed WDFW to propose to Governor Inslee that the state close the $31 million funding gap and make another $28 million of spending increases with a mix of roughly 75 percent in general funds and 25 percent in increased license revenue. Earlier in August, the commission also approved making the Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement permanent, which would otherwise expire June 30, 2019.
The commission approved the license-fee revision on a voice vote, with only Commissioner Don McIsaac expressing opposition.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 28, 2018, 09:10:43 PM
Post by: Oh Mah on August 28, 2018, 09:14:52 PM
Post by: huntnphool on August 28, 2018, 09:50:37 PM
So, there should be a 15% increase in quality of experience then? :chuckle:
Lmfao :chuckle:
Yeah......no!!!
Post by: bobcat on August 28, 2018, 10:14:18 PM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on August 28, 2018, 10:35:56 PM
*censored*s!
And they sent me a survey concerned about "perception."
Post by: huntnphool on August 28, 2018, 11:22:09 PM
*censored*s!
And they sent me a survey concerned about "perception."
Me too
Post by: j_h_nimrod on August 29, 2018, 12:54:54 AM
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 04:23:58 AM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: ctwiggs1 on August 29, 2018, 07:57:12 AM
ID is starting to look less expensive, even for a west sider who has a long drive.
Post by: Special T on August 29, 2018, 08:11:48 AM
Actually it doesn't sound that bad if you're a serious hunter who buys everything.They structured this in a way to maximize revenue. The cap in bump for package purchasers is so that you have less to gain by dropping to buying just deer and elk. It is a simalar move for when they removed the deeror elk &bear& cougar option to just the full combo. It increased revenue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 08:16:03 AM
Post by: Special T on August 29, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
Additionally I would bet that it's what is necessary to sell the state on bumping up thier portion.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 09:15:53 AM
How'd we get from 5% increase to 15%?
Quote
The commission, a citizen board appointed by the governor to set policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW),The commissioners voted on Monday (Aug. 27) to replace an earlier 5-percent proposed increase with the 15-percent proposal.
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 09:17:44 AM
key
Post by: huntnphool on August 29, 2018, 09:23:04 AM
"appointed by the governor"
key
Bingo! Ever met a liberal that didn't support tax hikes or fee raises?
My guess is they figure out people were pissed about the 5% hike and getting push back, so decided to ask for 15%.....that way when it goes through at 5% people will be okay with it. :twocents:
Post by: bigtex on August 29, 2018, 09:34:50 AM
How'd we get from 5% increase to 15%?The hunting and fishing groups asked for it. The commission's options were 5% or 15%, they initially approved the 5% increase. Then the groups said hey you guys need a 15% increase so the commission changed course and went with the 15%.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on August 29, 2018, 09:37:11 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: CGDucksandDeer on August 29, 2018, 09:40:22 AM
Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment, especially in a diverse and growing state like this one. Compared to the price of one-day lift tickets, green fees or even gas and beer prices, annual combo licenses are still a steal. Our fish and wildlife are well worth the additional cost of an eighteen rack or a quarter tank in the truck.
Letter content:
Date: August 15, 2018
To: Chair Smith; Vice Chair Carpenter; Commissioners Baker, Graybill, Holzmiller, Kehoe, McIsaac,
and Thorburn
Cc: State Legislators
Dear Commissioners:
As leaders in fish and wildlife conservation representing hunting, fishing, outdoor recreation, nature
conservation, working lands, and local government interests, we write to urge you to revisit the
resolution you passed Saturday to request a 5% fee increase. That amount is far less then just the effect
of inflation since the last (2011) fee increase and we fear will be frowned upon by legislators and force
the Department into cuts that will harm our interests and our state’s natural resources.
We are among the members of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Department’s (WDFW)
Budget and Policy Advisory Group, convened in response to a June 2017 budget proviso obligating the
Department to scrutinize its operating and financial practices. We speak here not as an official WDFW
advisory group, but as leaders of our respective organizations and constituencies. We are bringing our
diverse interests together here to draw attention to the unprecedented risk to Washington’s fish and
wildlife and essential habitat, and also to project the unprecedented unity of intention shown by our
diverse groups joining together.
What we have learned together is substantial and unanticipated. We share here highlights of our
acquired understanding in hope of bolstering your appreciation for the Department, its increasingly
important mission, and its role in stewarding our wildlife and habitat. These resources are a wellspring
for Washington’s economy and quality of life, today and tomorrow.
The Department is efficient, comparing well with wildlife agencies in other states. Some believe that
WDFW is not delivering sufficient impact for the resources awarded it, and that perhaps even some
fiscal malfeasance contributed to its 2017 budget shortfall. The proviso directed the Department to
undertake an evaluation by an outside management consultant; the results of that audit (https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/proviso/matrix_wdfw_final_report_1-11-18.pdf (https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/budget/proviso/matrix_wdfw_final_report_1-11-18.pdf)) should retire
the undeserved assumptions or allegations. WDFW’s management was not the cause of its budget
shortfall and appropriate funding should be restored.
The Department’s mission reflects the public interest served, but its budget does not. We fully
embrace its mission To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing
sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities. Fulfilling this mandate for the
incredible diversity of fish, wildlife and outdoor experiences of our state is a unique challenge currently
not supported by adequate funding from the legislature.
Expenditures say more than words, and the disproportionate spending shown in the below graphic is
instructive. We hope to correct a perception that the Department’s work on diversity (non-game)
conservation and non-consumptive recreation is subsidized by sportsmen and sportswomen. WDFW
license proceeds from (and expenditures on) hunting and fishing are significant, as are federal grants
tied to excise taxes on fishing tackle, guns and ammunition. In comparison to those, spending on diversity and recreation pales. More to the point, spending on diversity and recreation also pales compared to general fund appropriations to WDFW, which are a fitting expression of taxpayer interest in the health and enjoyment of natural resources. We call on the legislature to improve the balance between these revenue sources—allowing the Department to increase sorely needed funding for wildlife conservation and outdoor recreation while providing ample hunting and fishing opportunity, consistent
with its diverse mission.
The Department confronts extraordinary challenges that warrant support. Over and above the
demands on its peer agencies, WDFW manages endangered salmon and other anadromous fisheries,
treaty obligations, species and habitat ranging from coastal rainforests to high deserts, and other
demands making the WDFW mission extraordinarily complex. Compared to other Western states,
Washington is the smallest, has the least amount of public land, and its human population is among the
densest and fastest-growing, impacting the ability to provide abundant fish, wildlife, and recreational
access. Most of the population lives in watersheds that drain into Puget Sound, where our southernresident
killer whales face extinction along with their primary food: Chinook salmon. Imperiled species
from lynx to sharp-tailed grouse require substantial recovery attention. The return of wolves has
compounded the staff’s workload. Ungulate herds, while generally stable, are tenuous in certain
localities, with growing concerns ranging from elk hoof disease to shrinking mule deer winter range to
declines in moose and mountain caribou populations to crop damage from wildlife foraging. Our fish and
wildlife resources and recreation opportunities are struggling because of the Department’s immense
challenges, not its shortcomings. The world is changing, and WDFW must be given the resources to
evolve to meet these diverse current challenges.
Failure harms not just the agency, but also the state. We the people of the Evergreen State are
renowned for our love of nature’s beauty and bounty, which rely upon the health of our ecosystems and
therefore on WDFW’s success. The outcomes effect not just our Washington identity and lifestyle, but
also our economy and health. To pursue fish, wildlife, and inspiration, we depart cities to spend
hundreds of millions of dollars in areas like La Push, Ilwaco, Wapato, Wauconda, and Chewelah. As salmon deliver ocean nutrients to upland soil, we thus distribute the riches of our modern economy. The taxes on these expenditures then flow to Olympia, from which they are dribbled out to WDFW. While WDFW received $94M in GF-S for this biennium, a Department of Revenue report published in August of 2016 estimated that its work, leveraged with other Department fund sources, will generate $340M in GF-S, a fiscal return on state investment greater than 350%. The declining trend of Department funding
as a share of the state budget risks these lifestyle and economic benefits.
We care, and we’re coming together for change. While WDFW’s diverse stakeholders at times have
competing interests, we share a common need for a strong WDFW to provide healthy and diverse
wildlife and a full range of opportunities to enjoy it. We are now determined to work together in
support of the Department, lest we lose our heritage. The proviso directed the Department to evaluate
options for cuts. Department Staff earnestly complied, but we members of the Budget and Policy
Advisory Group are gravely concerned about the level of cuts being suggested. To succeed, the
Department requires over $60 million above its present funding (not including expected orca needs), half
to fix the shortfall created by the legislature in the last biennium and half to invest in the future by
helping correct inequities and the damage caused by a decade of underfunding. This is a huge goal that
is only likely to be achieved if its weight is shared. Our belief is that an appropriate breakdown is for at
least 25% ($15M) to be covered by increased fees, challenging the Legislature to pass that fee bill and
match it threefold from the General Fund. Perhaps a combination of a modest surcharge and modest fee
increase (plus CSSE) would avoid hitting too heavily on either end of the customer spectrum. Any less
than 25% risks a response from the Legislature that could leave the department underfunded, impose
yet higher fees on sportsmen and women, or both. Strong leadership from the Commission is our best
chance for success. We also commit to working in the legislature to not only pass the fee bill that you
approve, but to assure this funding is new to the natural resources portion of the state budget, not
reallocated from other natural resource or environmental appropriations.
WDFW has been blamed for the consequences of its own victimization and factors beyond its control.
We stakeholders are guilty of that, as is the Legislature. The BPAG process is worthwhile for having
educated us all to the Department’s competencies, efficiencies, and vital services upon which we all rely
going forward. We must remedy the failures of the past by providing the Department the means to
successfully steward the resources all Washingtonians value and require.
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 09:52:09 AM
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 09:56:02 AM
"Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment"Agreed. That group doesn't speak for all sportsmen. I would wager they don't even speak for the majority.
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on August 29, 2018, 10:00:00 AM
Post by: bigtex on August 29, 2018, 10:21:43 AM
"Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment"Agreed. That group doesn't speak for all sportsmen. I would wager they don't even speak for the majority.
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'd disagree. I think if you add up the membership of all the groups (CCA, Puget Sounds Anglers, Mule Deer, etc) they're member numbers would be a significant majority of sportsmen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on August 29, 2018, 10:22:34 AM
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on August 29, 2018, 10:24:17 AM
WDFW should be lowering fees at the same ratio as we're loosing opportunities, not having us pay more for less and less hunting and fishing. The only thing these increased fees will buy us is more regulation and beurcracy because that's all it funds!I'd love to see a state that does that.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on August 29, 2018, 10:35:59 AM
I highly doubt the rank and file members of these groups (I'm one of them) support or have any say in this."Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment"Agreed. That group doesn't speak for all sportsmen. I would wager they don't even speak for the majority.
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'd disagree. I think if you add up the membership of all the groups (CCA, Puget Sounds Anglers, Mule Deer, etc) they're member numbers would be a significant majority of sportsmen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on August 29, 2018, 10:37:43 AM
Agreed. But I'm sure they'll have no problem throwing out how big their membership base is to sway the opinion on this.I highly doubt the rank and file members of these groups (I'm one of them) support or have any say in this."Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment"Agreed. That group doesn't speak for all sportsmen. I would wager they don't even speak for the majority.
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'd disagree. I think if you add up the membership of all the groups (CCA, Puget Sounds Anglers, Mule Deer, etc) they're member numbers would be a significant majority of sportsmen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Wacenturion on August 29, 2018, 12:37:17 PM
I highly doubt the rank and file members of these groups (I'm one of them) support or have any say in this."Greater opportunity and effective conservation require investment"Agreed. That group doesn't speak for all sportsmen. I would wager they don't even speak for the majority.
I agree, but unfortunately have little confidence in the department or the state to be able to accomplish ....well anything at the moment.
Thank you for including the letter.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I'd disagree. I think if you add up the membership of all the groups (CCA, Puget Sounds Anglers, Mule Deer, etc) they're member numbers would be a significant majority of sportsmen.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Exactly...……..
Post by: kopfjaeger on August 29, 2018, 08:06:31 PM