Post by: chukar14 on April 10, 2019, 11:08:12 AM
May want to contact your legislators if you hunt pheasant on the westside, I did
Post by: WSU on April 10, 2019, 11:11:05 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2019, 11:19:48 AM
Post by: birddogdad on April 10, 2019, 11:28:28 AM
Post by: kselkhunter on April 10, 2019, 11:34:07 AM
I think most folks that use them frequently would pay a higher fee. It's far cheaper than hunting a private pheasant preserve. The hard part is for the state to figure out the math of diminishing returns: how high could they raise it before purchases reduced enough to where total revenue no longer grows. I think bobcat is right, $200 could probably be sustained.
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2019, 11:34:40 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 10, 2019, 11:42:22 AM
Post by: WSU on April 10, 2019, 11:46:14 AM
Post by: bobcat on April 10, 2019, 11:50:53 AM
Post by: singleshot12 on April 10, 2019, 11:54:19 AM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
should not be in the business of making a profit!
Post by: Gobble Doc on April 10, 2019, 12:00:16 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on April 10, 2019, 12:22:39 PM
Quote
“If we bring in 15 percent more revenue, maybe we can restore it,” he said.
The commission wants to reduce the fee hike and get more money from Olympia - makes sense if you consider how much money WDFW spends on things like native chinook, orcas, wolves and other pet projects that are never hunted or fished for.
So, WDFW does what any WA government agency does - throws a fit and starts chopping stuff that will hurt. Notice not one word of admin reductions, sharing expenses with other state departments, becoming more efficient, or reducing any program that has an environmental aspect - 100% of the cuts he mentioned are straight at hunters and anglers.
Scroll through the budget and you will see they are throwing buckets of money at orcas (>$12M) while wolf recovery gets a hefty $1M.
It's an obvious one-sided kick to the sportsmen - you pay for what we want to do or we yank your opportunity. It's also no surprise they haven't announced the orca impact to chinook seasons until all of this blows over and licenses are bought.
Post by: WSU on April 10, 2019, 12:25:45 PM
Here's all you need to know in one quote:Quote“If we bring in 15 percent more revenue, maybe we can restore it,” he said.
The commission wants to reduce the fee hike and get more money from Olympia - makes sense if you consider how much money WDFW spends on things like native chinook, orcas, wolves and other pet projects that are never hunted or fished for.
So, WDFW does what any WA government agency does - throws a fit and starts chopping stuff that will hurt. Notice not one word of admin reductions, sharing expenses with other state departments, becoming more efficient, or reducing any program that has an environmental aspect - 100% of the cuts he mentioned are straight at hunters and anglers.
Scroll through the budget and you will see they are throwing buckets of money at orcas (>$12M) while wolf recovery gets a hefty $1M.
It's an obvious one-sided kick to the sportsmen - you pay for what we want to do or we yank your opportunity. It's also no surprise they haven't announced the orca impact to chinook seasons until all of this blows over and licenses are bought.
Amen. Closing a hatchery that funds almost solely commercial fisheries would pay for it. Did anyone find that in the budget? A large increase in commercial fees to pay for their share of the fish? Didn't think so.
Post by: full choke on April 10, 2019, 12:29:28 PM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Should we apply this logic to all non-native hunting opportunities- like the Yakima elk herd?
Post by: singleshot12 on April 10, 2019, 12:32:29 PM
Got to cover the cost of wolves somewhere.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well look on the bright side maybe the wolves will eat the coyotes
Post by: Stein on April 10, 2019, 12:35:54 PM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
I'm all for that provided we also introduce a rule that hunting and fishing licenses as well as PR and DG money cannot be used for anything that doesn't directly benefit hunting and fishing opportunities.
Post by: singleshot12 on April 10, 2019, 12:36:26 PM
Here's all you need to know in one quote:Quote“If we bring in 15 percent more revenue, maybe we can restore it,” he said.
The commission wants to reduce the fee hike and get more money from Olympia - makes sense if you consider how much money WDFW spends on things like native chinook, orcas, wolves and other pet projects that are never hunted or fished for.
So, WDFW does what any WA government agency does - throws a fit and starts chopping stuff that will hurt. Notice not one word of admin reductions, sharing expenses with other state departments, becoming more efficient, or reducing any program that has an environmental aspect - 100% of the cuts he mentioned are straight at hunters and anglers.
Scroll through the budget and you will see they are throwing buckets of money at orcas (>$12M) while wolf recovery gets a hefty $1M.
It's an obvious one-sided kick to the sportsmen - you pay for what we want to do or we yank your opportunity. It's also no surprise they haven't announced the orca impact to chinook seasons until all of this blows over and licenses are bought.
Sooooo!? It appears they are biting the hand that feeds them.
Post by: Special T on April 10, 2019, 12:53:18 PM
I enjoyed taking my kids out Pheasant hunting at the old DNR Bow Hill site. it was less combat huntign than i experienced at other "field" areas like Leque, and Ebey Islands. They got more Trips out than I could schedule taking them to E wa. Recruitment is an issue and the Department is competing with all manner of other activities.
The real question will be how many barriors will they put up to sportsmen that want to use the decreasing acreage for "Training" purposes in the off season?
Post by: Bullkllr on April 10, 2019, 06:35:52 PM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
I'm all for that provided we also introduce a rule that hunting and fishing licenses as well as PR and DG money cannot be used for anything that doesn't directly benefit hunting and fishing opportunities.
Would any of the WDFW programs that involve "planting" of any species survive if license fees had to cover the cost? Like hatchery fish harvest?
Post by: Stein on April 10, 2019, 09:44:26 PM
The North American conservation model relies on hunters and fishermen to pick up the lion's share of the tab. It happens through licenses, organizations funded by hunters and fishermen as well as DJ and PR tax money paid by hunters and fishermen and those that buy shooting and fishing stuff.
Post by: REHJWA on April 12, 2019, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: riflehunter on April 12, 2019, 11:17:18 AM
Post by: jackson7 on April 12, 2019, 01:00:21 PM
Post by: Pegasus on April 12, 2019, 01:22:38 PM
Post by: Bullkllr on April 14, 2019, 07:21:08 AM
I'm pretty sure what they paid the wolf/conflict consultant (for :dunno:) could have paid for westside pheasant opportunities for many hunters for quite a while.
:bash:
Post by: B4noon on April 16, 2019, 05:54:59 AM
[quote
Would any of the WDFW programs that involve "planting" of any species survive if license fees had to cover the cost? Like hatchery fish harvest?
[/quote
Actually trout hatcheries are the bread and butter of the agency and generate more then enough revenue through license sales to be self sustaining and then some Problem is instead of the money generated going back to the operation it falls in the hands of administrators who use it for other expenses and programs that have little to do with the backbone of the agency because their other programs dont generate revenue. The first thing they threaten every 2 years are recreational user programs because they know were the only ones that give a *censored* and are passionate about what our traditions are not just lost snowflakes trying to follow a cause to find our place in the world. Legislature needs to give directive that core agency functions will be fully funded and non negotiable and if wdfw cant manage money quit creating more WMS and administrative positions they need a major overhaul in NRB and clubbing recreational opportunities like a baby seal is not the answer. Every program wdfw runs such as the pheasant program could cover it's own cost however for every $ spent they tack on a 32% indirect overhead fee to fund management therefore If the program actually cost $1,000,000 to operate they charge $1,320,000 and use the $320,000 to fund the non funded admin positions they have managed to create over the years. This is the practice that needs to stop that's why they have no heartburn paying a wolf expert a crazy amount of money. Funding is not coming out of their pocket they get the funding for that program elsewhere and then tack on 32% for themselves the more the pay the more they make. If you talk to legislators ask them to fully fund recreational opportunities with a directive that management must be reined in. Legislators are fully aware of wdfw top heavy practices and understand the economic impact having recreational opportunities have on communities throughout the state. They want to play ball and make our traditions a sacraficial lamb to get funding for their "enhancement" packages and special projects force the hand and let's not make it a negotiable game which had been played for years lrecreational license buyers it's time to say enough
Post by: jagermiester on April 16, 2019, 01:20:15 PM
This is the last line in the article.
It is sad that they are removing the pheasant release program but I truly believe this article deserves a read with bot eyes open. The WDFW is running itself into the ground and we are going to suffer from this. It's time to elect the correct people into office that can actually make a change in the misuse of our public dollars. Contact your Pheasants forever chapter and Ducks Unlimited, RMEF. Talk to your friends about getting a Republican Governor that is fiscally responsible. Change needs to happen.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2019, 01:37:55 PM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
should not be in the business of making a profit!
They've never made a profit on anything or else they wouldn't need to dip into the general fund. There comes a point that the numbers don't pencil out for specific programs, either through diminished use or spiraling costs, or both. If a limited number are benefiting from the program while other programs that serve more users suffer, you have to make tough decisions. This may be one.
Post by: 2MANY on April 16, 2019, 03:01:35 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 16, 2019, 03:19:28 PM
Post by: WSU on April 16, 2019, 04:02:51 PM
If the pheasant folks were laid off it would be horrible as it would lead to more weekday crowding on the local steelhead rivers.
Good thing there are no local steelhead rivers worth going to. Wdfw has made sure that isn’t an issue for us.
Post by: AspenBud on April 16, 2019, 08:18:39 PM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
should not be in the business of making a profit!
They've never made a profit on anything or else they wouldn't need to dip into the general fund. There comes a point that the numbers don't pencil out for specific programs, either through diminished use or spiraling costs, or both. If a limited number are benefiting from the program while other programs that serve more users suffer, you have to make tough decisions. This may be one.
Well they could charge what private hunting preserves do for a half day hunt. That alone costs more than a season pheasant tag here. The problem is people don’t want to pay true cost and accuse public agencies of screwing them. So instead if we want planted birds we will get to pay a small fortune to privately run operations. But that’s okay, as long as it’s not government people will happily spread them. 🙄
Post by: AspenBud on April 16, 2019, 08:31:12 PM
If WDFW wants to start losing more hunters this will be a great start. Not everyone wants to travel hours east to hunt and any number of pheasant tag buyers buy a small game license as the secondary purchase. If you live east of the mountains or have time and money your hands maybe this state is sort of an upland paradise. But west of the mountains...this place sucks.
Pheasant release has been around for decades here. If they kill that they will end things for a lot of western WA bird hunters. It has always been the one consolation prize.
Post by: Iveexcaped3 on April 16, 2019, 09:16:09 PM
Post by: Bill W on April 16, 2019, 09:20:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2019, 09:22:05 PM
That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.
Post by: AspenBud on April 16, 2019, 10:29:29 PM
Iveexcaped3-
That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.
On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.
Post by: Iveexcaped3 on April 16, 2019, 11:00:58 PM
TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.Iveexcaped3-
That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.
On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.
Post by: bobcat on April 16, 2019, 11:25:20 PM
Post by: Pegasus on April 16, 2019, 11:33:06 PM
TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.
Baloney. TV dinners are great. The most delish TV dinner that my wife and I have found are the large size Stouffer's Salisbury Steak with Macaroni & Cheese. We would eat those every night but we know that is not healthy. Instead we alternate our nightly dinner between the Salisbury Steak and Jack Daniels.
Not sure if you have been around the block but the recruitment of youth is a last ditch attempt to rectify all of the mistakes the WDFW has made in destroying the future of the hunting industry in Washington. They are choosing to pick on the Westside Pheasant Hunting Program so that the hunters will contact their legislators to demand that the program not be cut and they will get the additional monies demanded to operate the WDFW. There is a pretty good population of hunters in Western Wasington. If you haven't figured that out ...well... We see this game played every time. Close the parks, get the people angry. Remember? Angry people will justify the increases in costs of operating the WDFW. No one asks why they can't manage the money that they already get successfully do they? Maybe they need some businessmen in charge?
Post by: Pegasus on April 16, 2019, 11:47:25 PM
The way I see it is the state needed to work on protecting habitat and acquiring more prime habitat in Western Washington that would support pheasants, if they wanted pheasants to actually be something that could provide a good hunting experience for people. It's too late now. It needed to be done back in the 70's when land was still cheap and undeveloped. The pheasant release sites they have now are a joke.
Pheasants rarely survive in Western Washington. They might make it a season or two but it is a rare hatch that survives. I know, I used to release them in the Westside. Hens and roosters. They just don't survive the hatch, hence the release sites. The release sites suck because they are too small. I have gone to them a few times. They are dangerous and you can almost guarantee that either you or your dog will get peppered with shot. They can certainly afford to buy or lease larger sites but they don't. I don't think it is the money although they will claim it is. I think there is some relationship between the owners, the leases that exist and the WDFW. Have no proof of that but it makes sense. They have used the same sites for eons. Sites are OK to use after World War III has ended to train a dog and occasionally you find a bird that survived the war.
Post by: singleshot12 on April 17, 2019, 06:39:01 AM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Them? We are all in this together. We WF&W
should not be in the business of making a profit!
They've never made a profit on anything or else they wouldn't need to dip into the general fund. There comes a point that the numbers don't pencil out for specific programs, either through diminished use or spiraling costs, or both. If a limited number are benefiting from the program while other programs that serve more users suffer, you have to make tough decisions. This may be one.
Correct! never made a profit, but it was set up to be self-sustaining once the hatching and net pens were built. They got the feed cheap so that was not an issue.
The West Wash. pheasant program was set up to fail from the get go reaching it's 50 year expiration date. By establishing sites on or near waterfowl areas which created conflict, closing down release sites due to salmon restoration,then crowding pheasant hunters on remaining sites that were too close to neighboring properties resulting in way too many complaints by the land owners - (Which is probably the main reason why the program is on the chopping block.?)
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2019, 06:43:52 AM
TV dinners have been around since the 50’s too, doesn’t make it a good idea to keep eating them. Most of Washington’s state population is on the west side so if numbers are going down then maybe more west siders should be recruiting youth. The “ROI” is exactly why WDFW is thinking of getting rid of the program. If you were serious about hunting a species you’d go where they are and they would see a need to open areas closer.Iveexcaped3-
That's pretty much the way I feel about it. It seems dumb to put birds into areas in which they don't have the proper habitat to survive.
On the other hand we’ve been doing that since the 1950’s and every statistic out there shows that hunter numbers keep going down. So go ahead, root for another opportunity to go away and see what happens. Hunting the east side is a waste of time for a west sider without some idea of where to find birds. The ROI just isn’t there. It will be ducks or bust for bird hunting here for most.
Haul out a map and draw a circle around any city representing a 2 hour drive. If there are not huntable populations of any given species within that circle people don't go hunt them in any significant numbers. Or if they do they make one trip for a long weekend or a week and that's it. The money and time commitment to make it more regular outside that drive is often too much for people who work, especially those who have kids.
Some might call that laziness but most call it a matter of practicality. Hunter numbers are going off a cliff all over the country. If we let opportunities slip away that trend will simply get worse.
Bird hunting is under some assault this year. Down in Oregon they have legislation being considered that could impact field trials and hunt tests and there was one other piece of legislation that took it to an extra level targeting pen raised game birds (that one failed for now). Oregon is not unique, several states have seen similar legislation rolled out this year. Putting pheasant release on the chopping block here is yet another move to target bird hunting. If they remove that they can then target pen raised game birds for anything from private game reserves to trials and hunt tests and even dog training. They eliminate a conflict of interest if pheasant release goes away.
WDFW was pushing articles on how to bird hunt without a dog last year. Guess what could be next?
Post by: Bullkllr on April 17, 2019, 07:11:49 AM
You could also argue that many hatchery based fisheries are ridiculously expensive on a "per fish caught/returned basis". Direct user license fees don't come close to covering costs, thus requiring other budget sources.
Westside pheasant hunters have been "paying more" since what...the 80's... when the fee went up to near 100$. I think most would be willing to put more into the pot if it were proposed. There is more than $$ driving this.
I'm more than a little surprised and concerned so many here are not only not supporting, but actually speaking against this program.
It seems like more of the "it can go away since I don't do it" attitude. If you don't know where that attitude gets us all in the long run, you have not been paying attention.
Yes, it's low-hanging fruit; but what's next???
Post by: bobcat on April 17, 2019, 07:46:02 AM
I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2019, 08:17:04 AM
I'm not sure the "don't plant them because they don't survive" argument is valid unless you also apply it to fish. No one (except maybe WFC) wants to apply it to fish because it would end most fishing for salmonids across the entire state.
You could also argue that many hatchery based fisheries are ridiculously expensive on a "per fish caught/returned basis". Direct user license fees don't come close to covering costs, thus requiring other budget sources.
Westside pheasant hunters have been "paying more" since what...the 80's... when the fee went up to near 100$. I think most would be willing to put more into the pot if it were proposed. There is more than $$ driving this.
I'm more than a little surprised and concerned so many here are not only not supporting, but actually speaking against this program.
It seems like more of the "it can go away since I don't do it" attitude. If you don't know where that attitude gets us all in the long run, you have not been paying attention.
Yes, it's low-hanging fruit; but what's next???
First of all, comparing fishing to W.WA pheasant hunting is ridiculous, all due respects. Fisherman contribute about 8 million times more to the WDFW funds than those purchasing pheasant cards. Secondly, another option is to charge what would be needed to support the program. The problem is that would likely mean cards that cost $200-300 each. Then when that happens, 3/4 of the people currently buying would stop. So, then the cards would cost $1000 each and no one would get them.
We pay to play with our hunting and fishing fees. If you get chosen for a multi-season elk permit, you pay and extra $182 because it's worth it to you or you don't because it isn't. Elk hunters support the elk program with their tag dollars and the cost of those tags increases as the cost of the program increases. That's where we're at with the W.WA pheasant program. It's a prohibitively expensive program and if people want it to continue, instead of hunting for native birds on the E. side, they need to pay for it or find funding elsewhere to continue the program. Someone suggested Pheasants Forever and other conservation groups. That might be a great idea. But something needs to give, apparently.
Post by: The Marquis on April 17, 2019, 08:37:24 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 17, 2019, 08:40:26 AM
I think that depends on how the season is structured. If you were to pay $300 and still have Wed and the pick Sat or Sun and having youth getting special days, then it might not be worth the $300. If the number of hunters dropped a bit and you had a few more days/birds, then it might be a bargain. I think the big draw was the proximity--it was something you could get up at seven, drive a few miles and spend a few hours doing. Then it turned into combat hunting, waiting around, people walking in early, selecting days, etc.
First of all, comparing fishing to W.WA pheasant hunting is ridiculous, all due respects. Fisherman contribute about 8 million times more to the WDFW funds than those purchasing pheasant cards. Secondly, another option is to charge what would be needed to support the program. The problem is that would likely mean cards that cost $200-300 each. Then when that happens, 3/4 of the people currently buying would stop. So, then the cards would cost $1000 each and no one would get them.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 17, 2019, 08:41:16 AM
I'd rather WDFW take their financial losses by spending money on game that will survive and reproduce. I can think of nothing further from that than Western Washington pheasant.I think westside turkey might have been worse.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2019, 08:46:36 AM
I'd rather WDFW take their financial losses by spending money on game that will survive and reproduce. I can think of nothing further from that than Western Washington pheasant.I think westside turkey might have been worse.
Absolutely.
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2019, 09:18:12 AM
They're not a native bird. Maybe encourage people to hunt ruffed grouse, blue grouse, band tail pigeons, and waterfowl.
I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.
Pheasant in any form are not native. Neither are chukar and Huns and valley quail. I even seem to recall reading that the Rocky Mountain elk people pursue in eastern Washington were imported from Yellowstone. If we’re going to get rid of non-natives we can wipe out a lot of hunting in this state fast.
Band tails you get a whole 9 day season. Our grouse numbers are not that awesome and you are taking a risk with your bird dog if you hunt them in the unending rifle seasons we have.
Waterfowl is the only alternative left and that’s a no go for a lot of upland pointing dogs. Ducks also tend to taste like what they eat. 🤮
That leaves LONG drives to east of the mountains. This is how hunting dies.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2019, 09:39:26 AM
They're not a native bird. Maybe encourage people to hunt ruffed grouse, blue grouse, band tail pigeons, and waterfowl.
I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.
Pheasant in any form are not native. Neither are chukar and Huns and valley quail. I even seem to recall reading that the Rocky Mountain elk people pursue in eastern Washington were imported from Yellowstone. If we’re going to get rid of non-natives we can wipe out a lot of hunting in this state fast.
Band tails you get a whole 9 day season. Our grouse numbers are not that awesome and you are taking a risk with your bird dog if you hunt them in the unending rifle seasons we have.
Waterfowl is the only alternative left and that’s a no go for a lot of upland pointing dogs. Ducks also tend to taste like what they eat. 🤮
That leaves LONG drives to east of the mountains. This is how hunting dies.
The birds you mentioned are able to survive on their own. Pheasants can't survive on the wetside. They have to be stocked. Huge difference. If you feel this strongly about wetside pheasant hunting, make a proposal to the commission on how to pay for it. This isn't how hunting dies. This is how unsupportable programs which serve a tiny fraction of the hunting community yet carry a huge cost die.
Post by: WSU on April 17, 2019, 10:03:01 AM
WDFW pisses away money left and right on things that are far more expensive and less useful. This is just another step in the wrong direction. We are watching hunting fade away as the public gets less involved and has less connection. While the people here may be content to head to Wyoming for elk and drive their expensive bird dog to SE Wa every weekend, the kids and adults I talk to going through hunter education are not nearly that advance or knowledgeable. Lots don't even have a clue where to start. Something accessible like west side pheasant is a good place to start and a lot more approachable than trying to find private property to hunt 6 hours east.
I haven't hunted a release site in a decade (total guess). But, anyone that cares about hunting and recruitment should be opposed IMO.
Post by: Muleycrazy01 on April 17, 2019, 10:06:43 AM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Should we apply this logic to all non-native hunting opportunities- like the Yakima elk herd?
Spot on full choke... should we also have all the pheasants killed off in eastern WA aswell beings the ringneck pheasant is a non native species to the entire U.S.? They originated in China hints the name Chinese ringneck pheasant?.....
Post by: Muleycrazy01 on April 17, 2019, 10:13:41 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on April 17, 2019, 10:21:29 AM
Post by: KopperBuck on April 17, 2019, 10:33:44 AM
Then charge them a fee high enough to cover the cost, just like a private business would do.
Should we apply this logic to all non-native hunting opportunities- like the Yakima elk herd?
Spot on full choke... should we also have all the pheasants killed off in eastern WA aswell beings the ringneck pheasant is a non native species to the entire U.S.? They originated in China hints the name Chinese ringneck pheasant?.....
The difference, again.... as others have stated, it is not a renewable/sustainable population. I would try a stronger argument - i.e. quit taking sh*t from us that you know will hurt just so you get your funds. SOOOOOOOO many other options to cut funds, starting with WMS.
Post by: The Marquis on April 17, 2019, 11:16:02 AM
I'd rather WDFW take their financial losses by spending money on game that will survive and reproduce. I can think of nothing further from that than Western Washington pheasant.I think westside turkey might have been worse.
Absolutely.
I didn't realize there was currently a program that WDFW does to plant turkeys in Western Washington.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2019, 11:18:24 AM
Post by: The Marquis on April 17, 2019, 12:07:43 PM
They transplanted a bunch maybe 10, 15, 20 years ago, and they never made it. I don't believe they're still moving them in.
Well, at least they recognized that it failed and stopped the practice. Too bad wolves didn't turn out that way.
Post by: Pegasus on April 17, 2019, 12:21:00 PM
Post by: chukar14 on April 17, 2019, 01:05:02 PM
Quote
So are they closing the eastern sites, also? A place where pheasants can survive naturally year to year and breed?
The released ones on the east side don't survive either, and they only release roosters so even less chance of reproduction :dunno:
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2019, 01:11:24 PM
They're not a native bird. Maybe encourage people to hunt ruffed grouse, blue grouse, band tail pigeons, and waterfowl.
I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.
Pheasant in any form are not native. Neither are chukar and Huns and valley quail. I even seem to recall reading that the Rocky Mountain elk people pursue in eastern Washington were imported from Yellowstone. If we’re going to get rid of non-natives we can wipe out a lot of hunting in this state fast.
Band tails you get a whole 9 day season. Our grouse numbers are not that awesome and you are taking a risk with your bird dog if you hunt them in the unending rifle seasons we have.
Waterfowl is the only alternative left and that’s a no go for a lot of upland pointing dogs. Ducks also tend to taste like what they eat. 🤮
That leaves LONG drives to east of the mountains. This is how hunting dies.
The birds you mentioned are able to survive on their own. Pheasants can't survive on the wetside. They have to be stocked. Huge difference. If you feel this strongly about wetside pheasant hunting, make a proposal to the commission on how to pay for it. This isn't how hunting dies. This is how unsupportable programs which serve a tiny fraction of the hunting community yet carry a huge cost die.
Sure, and gun control advocates will stop with just a little more regulation too. First they came for...
Post by: GrampasGuns on April 17, 2019, 01:35:19 PM
Post by: The Marquis on April 17, 2019, 01:51:10 PM
QuoteSo are they closing the eastern sites, also? A place where pheasants can survive naturally year to year and breed?
The released ones on the east side don't survive either, and they only release roosters so even less chance of reproduction :dunno:
In 2 trips out last year, I saw only hens. I don't understand your math. If they only release roosters and the released roosters don't procreate or survive at all that means that 100% of the hens are native and a portion of the roosters are native. We know there are no native pheasants in Washington.
Post by: Pegasus on April 17, 2019, 01:57:13 PM
QuoteSo are they closing the eastern sites, also? A place where pheasants can survive naturally year to year and breed?
The released ones on the east side don't survive either, and they only release roosters so even less chance of reproduction :dunno:
In 2 trips out last year, I saw only hens. I don't understand your math. If they only release roosters and the released roosters don't procreate or survive at all that means that 100% of the hens are native and a portion of the roosters are native. We know there are no native pheasants in Washington.
Those hens you saw might have opted for a sex change so you couldn't shoot them. I am sure they were all roosters at one time.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 17, 2019, 02:18:43 PM
They're not a native bird. Maybe encourage people to hunt ruffed grouse, blue grouse, band tail pigeons, and waterfowl.
I grew up fishing the lakes around here for the stocked rainbow trout. Not sure I'm much in support of that anymore either. Are those rainbow trout native? I don't think so. How has filling the lakes with an artificially high number of a non native fish affected native species? There used to be wild cutthroat trout in one lake I'm familiar with. I'm pretty sure those fish are now gone.
Pheasant in any form are not native. Neither are chukar and Huns and valley quail. I even seem to recall reading that the Rocky Mountain elk people pursue in eastern Washington were imported from Yellowstone. If we’re going to get rid of non-natives we can wipe out a lot of hunting in this state fast.
Band tails you get a whole 9 day season. Our grouse numbers are not that awesome and you are taking a risk with your bird dog if you hunt them in the unending rifle seasons we have.
Waterfowl is the only alternative left and that’s a no go for a lot of upland pointing dogs. Ducks also tend to taste like what they eat. 🤮
That leaves LONG drives to east of the mountains. This is how hunting dies.
The birds you mentioned are able to survive on their own. Pheasants can't survive on the wetside. They have to be stocked. Huge difference. If you feel this strongly about wetside pheasant hunting, make a proposal to the commission on how to pay for it. This isn't how hunting dies. This is how unsupportable programs which serve a tiny fraction of the hunting community yet carry a huge cost die.
Sure, and gun control advocates will stop with just a little more regulation too. First they came for...
This isn't a discussion about our Constitutional rights. It's about birds, very expensive ones.
Post by: 2MANY on April 17, 2019, 02:19:36 PM
As of 2018 all pheasant pre-release are now required to watch an 8 hour video on reproduction tactics of wild birds.
In 2019 reproduction rates increased however popcorn consumption also increased causing some mating issues and inability to fly in birds who watched the movie more than once.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 17, 2019, 04:16:36 PM
I'm not sure the "don't plant them because they don't survive" argument is valid unless you also apply it to fish. No one (except maybe WFC) wants to apply it to fish because it would end most fishing for salmonids across the entire state.
You could also argue that many hatchery based fisheries are ridiculously expensive on a "per fish caught/returned basis". Direct user license fees don't come close to covering costs, thus requiring other budget sources.
Westside pheasant hunters have been "paying more" since what...the 80's... when the fee went up to near 100$. I think most would be willing to put more into the pot if it were proposed. There is more than $$ driving this.
I'm more than a little surprised and concerned so many here are not only not supporting, but actually speaking against this program.
It seems like more of the "it can go away since I don't do it" attitude. If you don't know where that attitude gets us all in the long run, you have not been paying attention.
Yes, it's low-hanging fruit; but what's next???
First of all, comparing fishing to W.WA pheasant hunting is ridiculous, all due respects. Fisherman contribute about 8 million times more to the WDFW funds than those purchasing pheasant cards. Secondly, another option is to charge what would be needed to support the program. The problem is that would likely mean cards that cost $200-300 each. Then when that happens, 3/4 of the people currently buying would stop. So, then the cards would cost $1000 each and no one would get them.
We pay to play with our hunting and fishing fees. If you get chosen for a multi-season elk permit, you pay and extra $182 because it's worth it to you or you don't because it isn't. Elk hunters support the elk program with their tag dollars and the cost of those tags increases as the cost of the program increases. That's where we're at with the W.WA pheasant program. It's a prohibitively expensive program and if people want it to continue, instead of hunting for native birds on the E. side, they need to pay for it or find funding elsewhere to continue the program. Someone suggested Pheasants Forever and other conservation groups. That might be a great idea. But something needs to give, apparently.
My point comparing the pheasant program with fish planting was maybe more hyperbolic than ridiculous, perhaps.
Have you checked how much it costs to hatch, propagate, and plant one of the "jumbo" trout the WDFW was so proud of? IIRC, the cost was like 1 per license fee. That means that anyone catching more than 1 of them was being funded by other license fee-payers, many of whom may not even fish for planted trout. How is that not at least partly like the way the pheasant program is funded?
I haven't hunted a release site for years; really, I just hate seeing more opportunity gone. How far are we from zero? It seems to be rapidly approaching...
Post by: Backstrap on April 17, 2019, 05:44:56 PM
They plant birds and fish on the east side too. Lots of planted birds in South Dakota too, and all over. Again, too many people wanting to take, compared to what Mother Nature can provide.
Like it or not, that’s where we’re at, by and large.
Post by: AspenBud on April 17, 2019, 07:18:38 PM
Planted bird and planted fish are the same, both are “put and take” opportunity. We depend on put and take because there really isn’t any sustainable populations of native birds or native fish, which can provide meaningful opportunity to the overinflated population we have. Migratory birds and razor clams are possible exception...
They plant birds and fish on the east side too. Lots of planted birds in South Dakota too, and all over. Again, too many people wanting to take, compared to what Mother Nature can provide.
Like it or not, that’s where we’re at, by and large.
The number of birds that they plant today is also a shadow of what they used to release.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 17, 2019, 08:13:26 PM
Planted bird and planted fish are the same, both are “put and take” opportunity. We depend on put and take because there really isn’t any sustainable populations of native birds or native fish, which can provide meaningful opportunity to the overinflated population we have. Migratory birds and razor clams are possible exception...
They plant birds and fish on the east side too. Lots of planted birds in South Dakota too, and all over. Again, too many people wanting to take, compared to what Mother Nature can provide.
Like it or not, that’s where we’re at, by and large.
Well said
Post by: Special T on April 17, 2019, 09:50:08 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: sidexside on May 20, 2019, 08:56:59 PM
Post by: jagermiester on May 22, 2019, 07:28:06 AM
Biologically like catchable trout there is no argument for it, but recruitment and retention are the name of the game. I take my son for the youth hunt to the release sites and se all the other young hunters hopefully being imprinted on hunting. Take a look at most of the general season hunters. They tend to be up there in age. Retention. If you think the release sites are the dumbest most sadistic wastes of money, you should still support them because they recruit and retain constituents to our dwindling numbers and at least provide exposure for those that don't maintain actively hunting so that they are informed voters that dont vote for initiatives that the humane society comes up with. We hunters all need to stick together and support eachother, but especially when it comes to recruitment and retention.
This is a very good point but at some point don't you think that we will just be doing it to do it. What I mean by that is that wouldn't the effort and the dollars be better spent to create habitat for the wild birds and ungulates. I firmly believe that when I bring my youngsters out it is good to have them be successful so that they want to come back, I have even taken them to game bird ranches, (on my dime). I think that we should continue to pay for pheasants but to the people doing the good work, like pheasants forever and such. IMHO pheasants being released with no chance to survive or thrive is an absolute waste of our efforts.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 22, 2019, 07:39:12 AM
Post by: chukar14 on May 22, 2019, 10:01:58 AM
Biologically like catchable trout there is no argument for it, but recruitment and retention are the name of the game. I take my son for the youth hunt to the release sites and se all the other young hunters hopefully being imprinted on hunting. Take a look at most of the general season hunters. They tend to be up there in age. Retention. If you think the release sites are the dumbest most sadistic wastes of money, you should still support them because they recruit and retain constituents to our dwindling numbers and at least provide exposure for those that don't maintain actively hunting so that they are informed voters that dont vote for initiatives that the humane society comes up with. We hunters all need to stick together and support eachother, but especially when it comes to recruitment and retention.
This is a very good point but at some point don't you think that we will just be doing it to do it. What I mean by that is that wouldn't the effort and the dollars be better spent to create habitat for the wild birds and ungulates. I firmly believe that when I bring my youngsters out it is good to have them be successful so that they want to come back, I have even taken them to game bird ranches, (on my dime). I think that we should continue to pay for pheasants but to the people doing the good work, like pheasants forever and such. IMHO pheasants being released with no chance to survive or thrive is an absolute waste of our efforts.
I did some research on this, in Lincoln county in 2015 the gov't paid $ 57 and acre for CRP land, but growing corn yielded $802 an acre. Now you can raise and release a pheasant for probably almost half of $57 dollars, so for about the cost of an acre of CRP land, we can basically get 2 pheasants per acre at Western was release site.
There is no where in E.Wa that has a wild pheasant density that high. I'm pro securing habitat for wild game and to prevent development, and we used to get it for free, but with cleaner more efficient farming practices it will be very costly to get productive pheasant land at a reasonable price.
Raising and releasing birds may be much more cost effective than paying for CRP land and more birds will be available for users.
Post by: Special T on May 22, 2019, 11:39:55 AM
Biologically like catchable trout there is no argument for it, but recruitment and retention are the name of the game. I take my son for the youth hunt to the release sites and se all the other young hunters hopefully being imprinted on hunting. Take a look at most of the general season hunters. They tend to be up there in age. Retention. If you think the release sites are the dumbest most sadistic wastes of money, you should still support them because they recruit and retain constituents to our dwindling numbers and at least provide exposure for those that don't maintain actively hunting so that they are informed voters that dont vote for initiatives that the humane society comes up with. We hunters all need to stick together and support eachother, but especially when it comes to recruitment and retention.
This is a very good point but at some point don't you think that we will just be doing it to do it. What I mean by that is that wouldn't the effort and the dollars be better spent to create habitat for the wild birds and ungulates. I firmly believe that when I bring my youngsters out it is good to have them be successful so that they want to come back, I have even taken them to game bird ranches, (on my dime). I think that we should continue to pay for pheasants but to the people doing the good work, like pheasants forever and such. IMHO pheasants being released with no chance to survive or thrive is an absolute waste of our efforts.
I did some research on this, in Lincoln county in 2015 the gov't paid $ 57 and acre for CRP land, but growing corn yielded $802 an acre. Now you can raise and release a pheasant for probably almost half of $57 dollars, so for about the cost of an acre of CRP land, we can basically get 2 pheasants per acre at Western was release site.
There is no where in E.Wa that has a wild pheasant density that high. I'm pro securing habitat for wild game and to prevent development, and we used to get it for free, but with cleaner more efficient farming practices it will be very costly to get productive pheasant land at a reasonable price.
Raising and releasing birds may be much more cost effective than paying for CRP land and more birds will be available for users.
Im glad some one menationed this. I would also add that maximazing edge cover on existing land has to be more cost effective than buying "habitat" and not doing any improvements.
Post by: jagermiester on May 24, 2019, 01:03:16 PM
Biologically like catchable trout there is no argument for it, but recruitment and retention are the name of the game. I take my son for the youth hunt to the release sites and se all the other young hunters hopefully being imprinted on hunting. Take a look at most of the general season hunters. They tend to be up there in age. Retention. If you think the release sites are the dumbest most sadistic wastes of money, you should still support them because they recruit and retain constituents to our dwindling numbers and at least provide exposure for those that don't maintain actively hunting so that they are informed voters that dont vote for initiatives that the humane society comes up with. We hunters all need to stick together and support eachother, but especially when it comes to recruitment and retention.
This is a very good point but at some point don't you think that we will just be doing it to do it. What I mean by that is that wouldn't the effort and the dollars be better spent to create habitat for the wild birds and ungulates. I firmly believe that when I bring my youngsters out it is good to have them be successful so that they want to come back, I have even taken them to game bird ranches, (on my dime). I think that we should continue to pay for pheasants but to the people doing the good work, like pheasants forever and such. IMHO pheasants being released with no chance to survive or thrive is an absolute waste of our efforts.
I did some research on this, in Lincoln county in 2015 the gov't paid $ 57 and acre for CRP land, but growing corn yielded $802 an acre. Now you can raise and release a pheasant for probably almost half of $57 dollars, so for about the cost of an acre of CRP land, we can basically get 2 pheasants per acre at Western was release site.
There is no where in E.Wa that has a wild pheasant density that high. I'm pro securing habitat for wild game and to prevent development, and we used to get it for free, but with cleaner more efficient farming practices it will be very costly to get productive pheasant land at a reasonable price.
Raising and releasing birds may be much more cost effective than paying for CRP land and more birds will be available for users.
So lets plant a couple of bird per acre so people can have a dummed down hunting experience instead of....
"Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, CRP is the largest private-lands conservation program in the United States. Thanks to voluntary participation by farmers and land owners, CRP has improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and increased habitat for endangered and threatened species."
I don't mean to sound argumentative but CRP is a good thing for our habitat dollars to go into as well as private land acquisitions and the stopping of chemicals sprayed on all the crops. For our grandchildren. I am not that old but I remember when Quincy WA had as many pheasants as North Dakota, now there are so few its not worth the effort. Let's shoot for the moon and get those wild birds back, because lets be honest they are kind of the canary in the mine. If they cannot survive the question is why?
Post by: Special T on May 24, 2019, 03:00:34 PM
Biologically like catchable trout there is no argument for it, but recruitment and retention are the name of the game. I take my son for the youth hunt to the release sites and se all the other young hunters hopefully being imprinted on hunting. Take a look at most of the general season hunters. They tend to be up there in age. Retention. If you think the release sites are the dumbest most sadistic wastes of money, you should still support them because they recruit and retain constituents to our dwindling numbers and at least provide exposure for those that don't maintain actively hunting so that they are informed voters that dont vote for initiatives that the humane society comes up with. We hunters all need to stick together and support eachother, but especially when it comes to recruitment and retention.
This is a very good point but at some point don't you think that we will just be doing it to do it. What I mean by that is that wouldn't the effort and the dollars be better spent to create habitat for the wild birds and ungulates. I firmly believe that when I bring my youngsters out it is good to have them be successful so that they want to come back, I have even taken them to game bird ranches, (on my dime). I think that we should continue to pay for pheasants but to the people doing the good work, like pheasants forever and such. IMHO pheasants being released with no chance to survive or thrive is an absolute waste of our efforts.
I did some research on this, in Lincoln county in 2015 the gov't paid $ 57 and acre for CRP land, but growing corn yielded $802 an acre. Now you can raise and release a pheasant for probably almost half of $57 dollars, so for about the cost of an acre of CRP land, we can basically get 2 pheasants per acre at Western was release site.
There is no where in E.Wa that has a wild pheasant density that high. I'm pro securing habitat for wild game and to prevent development, and we used to get it for free, but with cleaner more efficient farming practices it will be very costly to get productive pheasant land at a reasonable price.
Raising and releasing birds may be much more cost effective than paying for CRP land and more birds will be available for users.
So lets plant a couple of bird per acre so people can have a dummed down hunting experience instead of....
"Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, CRP is the largest private-lands conservation program in the United States. Thanks to voluntary participation by farmers and land owners, CRP has improved water quality, reduced soil erosion, and increased habitat for endangered and threatened species."
I don't mean to sound argumentative but CRP is a good thing for our habitat dollars to go into as well as private land acquisitions and the stopping of chemicals sprayed on all the crops. For our grandchildren. I am not that old but I remember when Quincy WA had as many pheasants as North Dakota, now there are so few its not worth the effort. Let's shoot for the moon and get those wild birds back, because lets be honest they are kind of the canary in the mine. If they cannot survive the question is why?
The basin had more pheasant because it had both more edge cover and different crops than today. Instead of super clean 125-170acre circles they had lots of 40 & 80 acre fields with fence-lines, weeds and ditches. Ive been told that when sugar beets were being raised there were more pheasants than imagined.
Post by: gaddy on May 24, 2019, 03:52:18 PM
Post by: GrampasGuns on June 05, 2019, 01:24:44 PM
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
Post by: chukar14 on June 06, 2019, 03:55:39 PM
I am all for the end of this program. There are better, more cost effective ways to provide hunting experiences.
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
It's not the homework, its the drive time... Finding roosters in E.WA isn't that hard, but as a father with two young children I can't afford to spend that much time driving 4 hours each way to hunt roosters on a saturday. the program provides opportunity and should be self funded, why would anyone have a problem with that.
Post by: Bullkllr on June 06, 2019, 06:56:10 PM
That's what I keep trying to figure out :dunno:I am all for the end of this program. There are better, more cost effective ways to provide hunting experiences.
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
It's not the homework, its the drive time... Finding roosters in E.WA isn't that hard, but as a father with two young children I can't afford to spend that much time driving 4 hours each way to hunt roosters on a saturday. the program provides opportunity and should be self funded, why would anyone have a problem with that.
Post by: jagermiester on June 06, 2019, 10:33:33 PM
Post by: avidnwoutdoorsman on June 07, 2019, 06:15:01 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Stein on June 07, 2019, 07:04:39 AM
Post by: jagermiester on June 09, 2019, 07:34:03 AM
I look at it like this...if your trying to get your kid into fishing or even a friend, do you take them to a local lake that is planted with plenty of fish for them to hopefully catch one? Or do you take them into the wilderness to a native stream that is far more difficult and cumbersome for them to have success and become engaged. Sure the lesson of hard work pays off is a good one. But why not provide the opportunity to get them hooked and then teach the intricacies. If you look at Westside Pheasant hunting as a premier or even good opportunity to experience “real pheasant” hunting your lost. Instead it’s the best opportunity to engage our youth and new hunters into the sport we all love. So just like we spend money to dump copious amounts of trout into lakes so the most lay person can catch a fish, I feel we should continue to provide the same opportunity hunting with pheasant release sites. It’s a stocked field instead of a stocked pond. Your weapon is a gun instead of a rod.
Solid point!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Backstrap on June 10, 2019, 05:43:21 PM
I am all for the end of this program. There are better, more cost effective ways to provide hunting experiences.
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
I don’t know the exact numbers, but I suspect that if all the west side hunters descended on the east side secret spots you refer to, then that too would become unsustainable. Your favorite honey holes might be honey holes because the release program takes pressure off them.
Post by: bigdub257 on June 10, 2019, 06:27:12 PM
I look at it like this...if your trying to get your kid into fishing or even a friend, do you take them to a local lake that is planted with plenty of fish for them to hopefully catch one? Or do you take them into the wilderness to a native stream that is far more difficult and cumbersome for them to have success and become engaged. Sure the lesson of hard work pays off is a good one. But why not provide the opportunity to get them hooked and then teach the intricacies. If you look at Westside Pheasant hunting as a premier or even good opportunity to experience “real pheasant” hunting your lost. Instead it’s the best opportunity to engage our youth and new hunters into the sport we all love. So just like we spend money to dump copious amounts of trout into lakes so the most lay person can catch a fish, I feel we should continue to provide the same opportunity hunting with pheasant release sites. It’s a stocked field instead of a stocked pond. Your weapon is a gun instead of a rod.
:yeah:
Solid point!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: WSU on June 20, 2019, 04:43:58 PM
Post by: AspenBud on August 03, 2019, 08:24:39 AM
I agree with the self funding of this. I like the idea of private enterprise doing year round hunts to paying customers. I might even do something like that outside of hunting season.
Do you like shooting yourself in the foot too? Private sector hunts are far far more expensive. The state program is a bargain by comparison.
Post by: AspenBud on August 03, 2019, 08:30:01 AM
I am all for the end of this program. There are better, more cost effective ways to provide hunting experiences.
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
It's not the homework, its the drive time... Finding roosters in E.WA isn't that hard, but as a father with two young children I can't afford to spend that much time driving 4 hours each way to hunt roosters on a saturday. the program provides opportunity and should be self funded, why would anyone have a problem with that.
Yup.
You’re down to grouse only on the west side if you are not a water fowler and we lose release site pheasant...which arguably could be a good thing if it meant the state threw money into habitat improvement for the thunder chickens.
The program has been around since the fifties. It has worked. Leave it alone and fund it. Keep taking opportunities close to home away and you will watch hunting and Pittman Robertson revenues die even more.
Post by: Special T on August 03, 2019, 08:55:46 AM
Doing away with it takes away from a recruiting tool. It is likely an under utilized one in this way.I am all for the end of this program. There are better, more cost effective ways to provide hunting experiences.
Why not focus on improving waterfowl habitat, saving the salmon and working to get more private land east of the mountains open to hunters.
Im afraid that in today's instagram culture, people want the grip and grin but aren't willing to do the work to find the birds and hunt them wild as it should be done.There are still great numbers of roosters in WA, but you gotta be willing to do the homework.
Some of the figures I have heard that it costs $$ wise per pheasant to release is unreal.
Not to mention why are we paying to feed the valley yotes and roadkill. I see dead pheasant on 203 daily during the season.
It's not the homework, its the drive time... Finding roosters in E.WA isn't that hard, but as a father with two young children I can't afford to spend that much time driving 4 hours each way to hunt roosters on a saturday. the program provides opportunity and should be self funded, why would anyone have a problem with that.
Yup.
You’re down to grouse only on the west side if you are not a water fowler and we lose release site pheasant...which arguably could be a good thing if it meant the state threw money into habitat improvement for the thunder chickens.
The program has been around since the fifties. It has worked. Leave it alone and fund it. Keep taking opportunities close to home away and you will watch hunting and Pittman Robertson revenues die even more.
To save $ today they could cut it and it wouldn't likely change much for them. We do know that Bird and small game hunting is one of the few ways to get new hunters started with little experience. More action and more active/social.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk