Post by: Jingles on March 22, 2022, 07:07:36 AM
tag you should be able to hunt that species with the weapon of your choice during that weapons season and if not successful during that weapons season should be able to use the weapon for the next season and continue to do so until you u either fill your tag or seasons end, paying 200.00 to do what you should be able to do already is ridiculous and counter productive.
If just those on Hunt WA did not purchase special permits and multi season permits for just 1 year what kind of a financial impact do you think it would have on the revenues of WDFW? This could be the hunters opportunity to do a kind of Boycott of their non scientific decisions.
But I'm as sure as I am that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west there are those that will say but this could be my year after 10 to 15 years or m oh re of putting in for a special permit that will go ahead and do it all over again only t o read Not Selected
Post by: ghosthunter on March 22, 2022, 07:23:54 AM
Except that you think it matters to them. Really?
I don’t, I think there is a concentrated effort by the folks pulling the strings to eliminate hunting in this state. I think the only thing that might change it is if a group dedicated to holding their feet to the fire steps up. And that we as hunters donate enough to that group to make it work.
The message on the wall is clear if you have a large number of points use them now and get out.
If you can.
And we break the democrat hold.
I am not a multi season guy anyways.
Post by: bobcat on March 22, 2022, 07:43:39 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 22, 2022, 08:00:15 AM
I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Post by: Jingles on March 22, 2022, 08:15:22 AM
I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
Well yes it is crowded but do you really think every gun hunter is going to go out and purchase archery equipment or A muzzle loader or those that hunt archery are all of a sudden decide to go back to modern? The reason I went to Archery is more for the challenge of getting close to my target game rather than firing an artillery round out to 800 yards or more as some here do, to me that is not hunting and I prefer to hunt rather than need a forward observer.
IMO shooting that far just says the hunter lacks the hunting skills to get close
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 22, 2022, 08:16:05 AM
not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Post by: elkboy on March 22, 2022, 08:20:31 AM
I don't disagree that there is currently a concerted effort by the animal rights types to eliminate as many kinds of hunting in Washington State as they can get away with. But when it comes to opportunity, or lack thereof, I think it is due in part to just too high a population density of people. I think the state had to go to a "choose your weapon" system to manage pressure on the game and maintain some kind of quality to the hunt.
Post by: bobcat on March 22, 2022, 08:26:46 AM
Maybe if you're not happy with the situation, don't buy any big game licenses, and spend all year hunting predators instead.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 22, 2022, 08:28:14 AM
I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
We have more people and less land to hunt and shorter seasons which would lead to overcrowding without choose your weapon imo
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2022, 08:36:38 AM
Post by: Iveexcaped3 on March 22, 2022, 08:41:08 AM
Post by: Wphunt on March 22, 2022, 08:59:47 AM
As GH said a central, dedicated, well funded group to lobby for hunting would probably help the most. There are a lot of sporting groups in the state but no cohesive voice to lobby effectively. How many "save the predators" groups had lawyers speaking for them during the spring bear comments? Almost all of them. That is what they spend their money on and it seems to work.
Post by: hunter399 on March 22, 2022, 09:00:45 AM
Not buying tags does nothing. Tags and licenses are only 1/3 of wdfw budget so if we stop funding will be found elsewhere to make up for it and they’ll roll it into some “we’ve saved the animals” tax. You want opportunities then get out and create habitat on our public lands, everyone wants the benefit of good conservation but doesn’t want to do the work. Skip the 2x2 bucks because a “small buck is better than no buck”. Leave them so they can breed, a breeded doe by a small buck is better than a does that’s not pregnant. The fact we hunt before breeding season doesn’t make sense to me but that’s a matter of personal opinion.I was with you till you said to leave those 2x2 bucks.
If it's legal deer in the freezer it goes. :chuckle:
They have all those super smart biologists and stuff.
That let me know it's ok .
Post by: Twispriver on March 22, 2022, 09:03:56 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 22, 2022, 09:38:58 AM
Us not buying tags, judging by the way things are going so far this year, will only make them happy that less people are hunting.
As mentioned multiple times already, I think it's too crowded already. I personally would support permit only mule deer hunting in Washington to reduce the crowds and the pressure, to help the deer herds and to create a more quality experience.
In closing, I fully support everyone on here not buying tags and permit applications this year. That would create much better odds of me finally drawing an elk permit.
Post by: hunter399 on March 22, 2022, 09:39:09 AM
More for me,yaaay .... :chuckle:
And don't try to tell me that you all are not thinking the same thing as me. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: arrowflinger on March 22, 2022, 09:47:49 AM
Us not buying tags, judging by the way things are going so far this year, will only make them happy that less people are hunting.
As mentioned multiple times already, I think it's too crowded already. I personally would support permit only mule deer hunting in Washington to reduce the crowds and the pressure, to help the deer herds and to create a more quality experience.
In closing, I fully support everyone on here not buying tags and permit applications this year. That would create much better odds of me finally drawing an elk permit.
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 09:50:17 AM
not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
Post by: blackdog on March 22, 2022, 09:52:51 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 09:55:51 AM
The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
"feelz" and "mean tweets" > hunting and 2A rights
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 22, 2022, 09:56:30 AM
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I don't see many other hunters either, the road closures are keeping them condensed into smaller areas. You and I both agree KF that roads we used to travel are blocked off. This leads to slower fire response times and that reduces habitat when it burns. Will take several years for it to come back.
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 22, 2022, 09:59:57 AM
I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
People hunt out of state for many reasons. But many definitely hunt out of state because it allows them to harvest more critters. If you allowed them to harvest more critters here by allowing hunters to hunt all seasons and methods, we'd have a problem with declining ungulate populations. We already have that with mule deer, blackies, and in some areas, elk.
Post by: bobcat on March 22, 2022, 10:03:09 AM
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 22, 2022, 10:03:27 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 22, 2022, 10:10:40 AM
where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
Post by: Mtnwalker on March 22, 2022, 10:30:38 AM
Jingles...I also don't agree with most of what you said.
Us not buying tags, judging by the way things are going so far this year, will only make them happy that less people are hunting.
As mentioned multiple times already, I think it's too crowded already. I personally would support permit only mule deer hunting in Washington to reduce the crowds and the pressure, to help the deer herds and to create a more quality experience.
In closing, I fully support everyone on here not buying tags and permit applications this year. That would create much better odds of me finally drawing an elk permit.
Three years ago I would agree with this... these days, I don't know how to feel about deer hunting in WA. I don't think it will ever get any better, and looking at the cuts to elk tags over the last few years I can't imagine that mule deer wouldn't go the exact same way if it went to draw only. At this point I've conceded to the fact that Washington deer hunting just is what it is and it will never be any better than it is today. It's an opportunity for a bunch of people to get out in the woods and maybe harvest a 2 or 3 year old deer if you're lucky. Unless we go back to a game department or radically change the current commission I don't want to give them my blessing to remove one ounce of opportunity, and I hate to feel like that. :twocents:
Post by: Chesterdog on March 22, 2022, 11:20:53 AM
I think people go to other states, where they can hunt more than one season, because there is simply more game to go around. Washington State has 116 people per square mile, and her human population has been doubling every 20 years since the late 1800s. Idaho has 22.3 people per square mile. Even Oregon has only 44.1 people per square mile. And then, of course, Montana and Wyoming- 7.5 and 5.9 people per square mile.
I don't disagree that there is currently a concerted effort by the animal rights types to eliminate as many kinds of hunting in Washington State as they can get away with. But when it comes to opportunity, or lack thereof, I think it is due in part to just too high a population density of people. I think the state had to go to a "choose your weapon" system to manage pressure on the game and maintain some kind of quality to the hunt.
Why is there such an effort in the WDFW literature to paint the picture that hunter participation is down? It seems opposite to what I've experienced.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 11:41:08 AM
where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 11:44:55 AM
Post by: Humptulips on March 22, 2022, 11:45:10 AM
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.
The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 11:46:38 AM
I think people go to other states, where they can hunt more than one season, because there is simply more game to go around. Washington State has 116 people per square mile, and her human population has been doubling every 20 years since the late 1800s. Idaho has 22.3 people per square mile. Even Oregon has only 44.1 people per square mile. And then, of course, Montana and Wyoming- 7.5 and 5.9 people per square mile.
I don't disagree that there is currently a concerted effort by the animal rights types to eliminate as many kinds of hunting in Washington State as they can get away with. But when it comes to opportunity, or lack thereof, I think it is due in part to just too high a population density of people. I think the state had to go to a "choose your weapon" system to manage pressure on the game and maintain some kind of quality to the hunt.
Why is there such an effort in the WDFW literature to paint the picture that hunter participation is down? It seems opposite to what I've experienced.
If you read KFhunter's posts he explains why it seems hunter participation is up, that's due to access, even though hunters are fewer we are all being squeezed into fewer and fewer areas to hunt due to restricted access in many areas that used to be accessible for hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 11:50:35 AM
Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
Post by: northwesthunter84 on March 22, 2022, 11:51:29 AM
The third issue will be an outlier until the prosecutors and judges start making big game offences hurt. None of this hunting privilege revocation trash, they never cared to begin with, lets push for mandatory fines and jail time.
The shared info is a quagmire, some groups go out of their way to share information and make things better while others go it on their own. My hope is someday everyone will come to the table to share information.
Post by: Humptulips on March 22, 2022, 11:55:04 AM
Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.I'm going to reply to my own post just so it doesn't get lost at the bottom of the last page. I will add I see less hunters every year just crammed into a smaller and smaller area. It isn't just private access though. large areas are just not worth hunting. Everybody heads to the same spot. I have a near 60 year perspective and there were way more hunters years ago but we were more spread out.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
Post by: Humptulips on March 22, 2022, 12:11:25 PM
It became apparent to me in the thread advocating for Blake as a F&W Commissioner that politically the average hunter doesn't know who their friends are when they step into the voting booth. Every Sportsmen should be getting mailings that inform them and ask for help. Sportsmen don't have to do it all for a candidate but we need to get behind our friends. I'm thinking kind of a NRA style outreach effort. That will take dollars and probably the right leadership.Enough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 12:11:31 PM
I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit the non committed or make our argument with some of the committedEnough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 12:30:36 PM
I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit the non committed or make our argument with some of the committedEnough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.
You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 12:50:03 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 12:53:40 PM
:sry:
I got no ideas either! :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 22, 2022, 12:54:03 PM
I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit the non committed or make our argument with some of the committedEnough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.
You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?
The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster. Everyone will have to suffer before anyone not already awake, will be forced to awaken. Inslee has been bought and paid for by animal rights groups and will continue to stack the Commission with anti-hunters and radical leftists. Our commission will never again be focused on their mission "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities." Those addicted to government handouts will continue to vote the status quo. They support Inslee, Sawant, Ferguson, Durkin, because every time these politicians open their mouths, they talk about free stuff, fewer laws, lower penalties, free drugs, and get out of jail free cards. They have nothing to gain by voting any other way unless the freebies dry up. Those guilty few elite liberals who are the "haves" will continue to vote for them because either they believe that this time, their votes will make a real difference for the "have-nots", or that they, having already amassed their fortunes, will be the "chosen" at the top of the new Utopia. They're blinded by the incessant lies and finger pointing by their liberal candidates at opponents...and the full, unwavering support of their "free press" to hide their candidates' shortcomings and inflate or create those of their opponents...or accepting of it. The end justifies the means.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 12:56:36 PM
While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?
No we're not in this together, if you're voting dem then you're the enemy of hunting, and other issues like 2A
Them's the facts.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 12:58:01 PM
I agree with that sentiment. Have to remember that a PAC representing only a few thousand can have an impact on some of the races, particularly a lot of the local races. I've said in other posts, and will again, we must find an appeal across party lines. Some of the venomous rhetoric and name calling doesn't help us when when we are trying to recruit the non committed or make our argument with some of the committedEnough with reducing hunter opportunity! Every year we get the same thread, hunting sucks so let's reduce hunter opportunity or let's not buy tags so we can make WDFW hurt.
Sure, hunting sucks but everyone knows what the problem is, and it isn't hunters taking too much game. It is 100% political and the latest Commission appointments make that in your face apparent.The smartest move that hunters can make is to get involved in this falls election. Find the candidates you can support and doorbell for them and march in parades with them. Majorities matter.
Best advice in this thread but I will go a step farther. We need a strong PAC that researches candidates, connects better with sportsmen and can make a difference in races. That takes involvement and money. Put those dollars you were going to spend on an access permit, towards dumping the likes of Insley, Van de Wege, Chapman.
:yeah: I would like to add an additional thought: Yes we need a PAC that is sportsman friendly, but there are not enough sportsmen in WA to have an impact, we must find ways to reach the non-hunting public, this PAC must find appeal with non-hunting voters.
The all or nothing point of view of some has so far been getting us nothing . Let's do our research beyond just party affiliation and go with those who support our efforts.
You are correct, but WA is primarily a democrat state, many hunters are Republicans, because it's Democrats who are primarily pushing to end hunting, it's hard for a republican to not think all democrats are responsible, at the same time it seems most democrats continue to vote for the same democrat politicians that hurt hunting. I'm not sure how to overcome these obstacles? Maybe someone else has better input on how to do that?
The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster. Everyone will have to suffer before anyone not already awake, will be forced to awaken. Inslee has been bought and paid for by animal rights groups and will continue to stack the Commission with anti-hunters and radical leftists. Our commission will never again be focused on their mission "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities." Those addicted to government handouts will continue to vote the status quo. They support Inslee, Sawant, Ferguson, Durkin, because every time these politicians open their mouths, they talk about free stuff, fewer laws, lower penalties, free drugs, and get out of jail free cards. They have nothing to gain by voting any other way unless the freebies dry up. Those guilty few elite liberals who are the "haves" will continue to vote for them because either they believe that this time, their votes will make a real difference for the "have-nots", or that they, having already amassed their fortunes, will be the "chosen" at the top of the new Utopia. They're blinded by the incessant lies and finger pointing by their liberal candidates at opponents...and the full, unwavering support of their "free press" to hide their candidates' shortcomings and inflate or create those of their opponents...or accepting of it. The end justifies the means.
The only thing that will change the tide of voting in this state is total disaster.
Yup, been saying it for a long time. Pain, and lot's of it.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2022, 12:59:47 PM
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 01:04:31 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
Moderate dems are unicorns, if you vote for one you're the enemy of hunting...period.
Why would Inslee give up power to select the commission members? That baffles me.
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 01:07:57 PM
kf- hate to say it, but that thinking is the very problem that's going to cost us our rights. Hunters continue to be their own worst enemies.While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?
No we're not in this together, if you're voting dem then you're the enemy of hunting, and other issues like 2A
Them's the facts.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 01:09:46 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 01:12:32 PM
kf- hate to say it, but that thinking is the very problem that's going to cost us our rights. Hunters continue to be their own worst enemies.While we can disagree on many issues, hunting rights and opportunity are not confined to one party or another. We need to convince those democrats who feel strongly on this issue, as I do, that they need to speak out more strongly. It's OK to offend members who you agree with on some issues when you strongly support an opposing issue. I suspect many members on here are democrats but rarely post because they don't want to hear the distan and name calling of some who seem to enjoy doing that. We're all in this together, we're in jeproday of losing a lifestyle we all love. Can't we bury the hatchet on this issue and together start formulating some working agreements?
No we're not in this together, if you're voting dem then you're the enemy of hunting, and other issues like 2A
Them's the facts.
You voted for Inslee, who appointed these comission members, canceled spring turkey, canceled fishing for nearly a year due to COVID, and you have the audacity to say I'M hurting hunting?
:rolleyes:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 22, 2022, 01:13:03 PM
You're so off base with what I said. You keep pointing out hunter numbers and over crowding. Where did I say a single thing about over crowding or hunter numbers? The simple truth is mule deer numbers continue to plummet and we just keep banging away. Sure up in your neck of the woods bears and cats are pretty out of control, but there are large areas of this state with no bears and very few cats yet MD numbers continue to plummet. USABLE habitat continues to shrink by the day but we continue to sell unlimited tags, multi season permits by the hundreds, damage tags for doe's and piles of doe tags in the draws. We can shoot two bears, hunt coyotes year round, and cats almost year round but very few actually do. So whats the realistic answer to help get mule deer back on their feet? Open more roads to increase access to kill more deer? Continue to hunt them unrestricted? Continue killing females? WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING. How insane is that!?!!where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Also your 2% draw odds with 15 points is dishonest and you know it. If it was a statewide draw there would be thousands of tags not dozens like there currently is.
Listen, we wiped all predators from the landscape at the turn of the century when the population of the US was 1/3 of what it was. Of course we had an ungulate boom (which I'd give almost anything to have witnessed) but that was man made, not natural. If we want these species for our children and our grandchildren to be able to hunt we gotta check some selfishness at the door. Yeah we need to kill predators, but we more importantly gotta start preserving habitat. Look to Wyoming and what that state is doing with mule deer migration corridor preservation and its effect on populations.
We can keep screaming predators at the top of our lungs but guess what folks, you aren't gonna bait bears in WA in your lifetime. You're not gonna run cats with hounds in WA in your lifetime. I'll be right there with everyone else screaming we need those back till I can't scream anymore but we gotta quit putting everything on predators. We gotta put our voice behind things that can still actually make a difference :twocents:
Post by: Platensek-po on March 22, 2022, 01:17:23 PM
You're so off base with what I said. You keep pointing out hunter numbers and over crowding. Where did I say a single thing about over crowding or hunter numbers? The simple truth is mule deer numbers continue to plummet and we just keep banging away. Sure up in your neck of the woods bears and cats are pretty out of control, but there are large areas of this state with no bears and very few cats yet MD numbers continue to plummet. USABLE habitat continues to shrink by the day but we continue to sell unlimited tags, multi season permits by the hundreds, damage tags for doe's and piles of doe tags in the draws. We can shoot two bears, hunt coyotes year round, and cats almost year round but very few actually do. So whats the realistic answer to help get mule deer back on their feet? Open more roads to increase access to kill more deer? Continue to hunt them unrestricted? Continue killing females? WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING. How insane is that!?!!where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Also your 2% draw odds with 15 points is dishonest and you know it. If it was a statewide draw there would be thousands of tags not dozens like there currently is.
Listen, we wiped all predators from the landscape at the turn of the century when the population of the US was 1/3 of what it was. Of course we had an ungulate boom (which I'd give almost anything to have witnessed) but that was man made, not natural. If we want these species for our children and our grandchildren to be able to hunt we gotta check some selfishness at the door. Yeah we need to kill predators, but we more importantly gotta start preserving habitat. Look to Wyoming and what that state is doing with mule deer migration corridor preservation and its effect on populations.
We can keep screaming predators at the top of our lungs but guess what folks, you aren't gonna bait bears in WA in your lifetime. You're not gonna run cats with hounds in WA in your lifetime. I'll be right there with everyone else screaming we need those back till I can't scream anymore but we gotta quit putting everything on predators. We gotta put our voice behind things that can still actually make a difference :twocents:
I agree with this 100%. Very well stated
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 22, 2022, 01:20:30 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
That's exactly what it is here in WA. Our liberal D governor is destroying our hunting by appointing activists (whose organizations have filled his pockets) to the Commission. An R governor would not have. We just lost spring bear...because of activists and ignorant or lying Ds. We have more gun control...because of activists and ignorant or lying Ds.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 22, 2022, 01:20:50 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 01:42:11 PM
I'm just looking at going draw only and wondering why you think the odds won't follow elk odds? Or spring bear went from nearly 50% odds to sub 20% in just a few years when it should be otc, and now its gone!
How many guys have 7 points now for spring bear? I think I'm 6
Mule deer special permit system doesn't put more deer on the landscape, it only puts better deer on the landscape, better deer brings more people putting in for draws and before you know it you got 7 or 8 points and haven't hunted a mule since.
Unless you can show me does that don't get bred?
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 01:42:20 PM
And just be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating for a full on draw but some sort of management needs to be implemented. Whether that be gmu quotas, region specific tags, species specific tags, etc. All we know is what we are currently doing now isn't working and its pure greed and laziness by WDFW.Well put and I agree. One thing to be careful of is these things can easily be used by those hunters and groups who want to convert us to the European Wildlife management system. Utah is subtly moving that direction- more land owner permits selling at ever higher prices, more raffles that bring in huge profits, and more limited entry hunts taking prime areas away from the general hunting population.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 02:10:07 PM
And just be clear, I'm not necessarily advocating for a full on draw but some sort of management needs to be implemented. Whether that be gmu quotas, region specific tags, species specific tags, etc. All we know is what we are currently doing now isn't working and its pure greed and laziness by WDFW.Well put and I agree. One thing to be careful of is these things can easily be used by those hunters and groups who want to convert us to the European Wildlife management system. Utah is subtly moving that direction- more land owner permits selling at ever higher prices, more raffles that bring in huge profits, and more limited entry hunts taking prime areas away from the general hunting population.
Totally disagree with this idea of limiting hunters! :bash:
Washington is already down to 3% hunters, take away more opportunity and you will reduce that number further.
The biggest problem we have is predators are eating the herds into nonexistence!
Another huge problem is groups like BHA who keep advocating and gaining further road closures and wilderness designations, all that does is put more hunters into ever increasingly fewer accessible areas for THE FEW HUNTERS WHO ARE STILL HUNTING!
At this point habitat is practically a non-issue, not because it isn't important, but because the extreme predation has decreased the herds to the point there isn't any animals left on the landscape to inhabit the habitat that is available to them. Animals have a better chance of surviving in human communities where predators aren't as abundant.
I think Utah has a pretty good system, there are over the counter areas that you can buy elk tags every year, but there are draw areas with huge bulls. Utah manages predators pretty well to try and keep herds from declining. The landowner tags bring in a lot of dollars for management they wouldn't otherwise have, granted there is a lot of jealousy from from people whoi can't afford to buy those tags, but its a small number of tags as compared to the thousands of tags the public gets for hunting. The disappointing factor is there are no over the counter deer areas in Utah, WA has done better in that respect.
Post by: 2MANY on March 22, 2022, 02:14:52 PM
It's really that simple.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 02:21:13 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 02:30:35 PM
You're so off base with what I said. You keep pointing out hunter numbers and over crowding. Where did I say a single thing about over crowding or hunter numbers? The simple truth is mule deer numbers continue to plummet and we just keep banging away. Sure up in your neck of the woods bears and cats are pretty out of control, but there are large areas of this state with no bears and very few cats yet MD numbers continue to plummet. USABLE habitat continues to shrink by the day but we continue to sell unlimited tags, multi season permits by the hundreds, damage tags for doe's and piles of doe tags in the draws. We can shoot two bears, hunt coyotes year round, and cats almost year round but very few actually do. So whats the realistic answer to help get mule deer back on their feet? Open more roads to increase access to kill more deer? Continue to hunt them unrestricted? Continue killing females? WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING. How insane is that!?!!where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Also your 2% draw odds with 15 points is dishonest and you know it. If it was a statewide draw there would be thousands of tags not dozens like there currently is.
Listen, we wiped all predators from the landscape at the turn of the century when the population of the US was 1/3 of what it was. Of course we had an ungulate boom (which I'd give almost anything to have witnessed) but that was man made, not natural. If we want these species for our children and our grandchildren to be able to hunt we gotta check some selfishness at the door. Yeah we need to kill predators, but we more importantly gotta start preserving habitat. Look to Wyoming and what that state is doing with mule deer migration corridor preservation and its effect on populations.
We can keep screaming predators at the top of our lungs but guess what folks, you aren't gonna bait bears in WA in your lifetime. You're not gonna run cats with hounds in WA in your lifetime. I'll be right there with everyone else screaming we need those back till I can't scream anymore but we gotta quit putting everything on predators. We gotta put our voice behind things that can still actually make a difference :twocents:
Karl this simply isn't true!
Quote
WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING.
There is no limit in Idaho or Montana for resident mule deer hunting, maybe limits on non-residents, but not for residents. I'm not sure about other states but suspect there are no limits on resident deer tags in some other states, thinking Wyoming for starters?
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 02:32:00 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2022, 02:32:28 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.So given who holds the political power in this state, who do you think has more influence in commission appointments and gun legislation...a moderate democrat or someone with an R behind their name?
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
I would like to see R's take back the Senate and give a little more balance and I think that could be achieved. I do not foresee a scenario where Republicans win the Governor seat in the next few decades...and given the appointment process...I'd suggest to you that moderate dems should not be alienated and lumped in with the crazy/progressive wing of their party.
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2022, 02:43:21 PM
:rolleyes:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Your hatred of DIY hunters has been noted many times. You are right, Montana voters, by ballot initiative ended outfitter set asides in ~2011(?). Then in the dark of night Republican reps and the Governor basically brought them back with their new point scheme. Bottom line - don't give me this BS that D's are all bad for hunting and R's are all good. There were a crap ton of hunters in Montana this year that came unglued when the R governor and his appointees tried to screw public land hunters. Politicians from both parties need watched as both can try and screw hunters...so enough of this BS that one party is pure and good and the other is evil...as far as I'm concerned they are all bad, some less bad than others depending on the issue and circumstance and so hunters/voters should never blindly support one political party over another. :bash:
Post by: Humptulips on March 22, 2022, 02:45:01 PM
This idea the Ds are all against us may be true broadly but if a Legislator is with us on issues, it shouldn't matter what their party.
FYI the vote of one Democrat this session killed animal rights bills I was working against and probably the visual that she was willing to vote the way she did probably stopped other bills from advancing.
Blake was the best friend sportsmen ever had and he had a D behind his name. He gave us protection from the worst AR bills.
Just two examples.
It is pretty tough to pass a bill but easy to kill one with people in the right place. You don't have to control the Legislature to make a difference.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 02:49:39 PM
:rolleyes:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Your hatred of DIY hunters has been noted many times. You are right, Montana voters, by ballot initiative ended outfitter set asides in ~2011(?). Then in the dark of night Republican reps and the Governor basically brought them back with their new point scheme. Bottom line - don't give me this BS that D's are all bad for hunting and R's are all good. There were a crap ton of hunters in Montana this year that came unglued when the R governor and his appointees tried to screw public land hunters. Politicians from both parties need watched as both can try and screw hunters...so enough of this BS that one party is pure and good and the other is evil...as far as I'm concerned they are all bad, some less bad than others depending on the issue and circumstance and so hunters/voters should never blindly support one political party over another. :bash:
If you want to up your DIY game, Bearpaw sells some killer DIY maps
Jus sayin
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 02:55:47 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 03:17:28 PM
:rolleyes:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Your hatred of DIY hunters has been noted many times. You are right, Montana voters, by ballot initiative ended outfitter set asides in ~2011(?). Then in the dark of night Republican reps and the Governor basically brought them back with their new point scheme. Bottom line - don't give me this BS that D's are all bad for hunting and R's are all good. There were a crap ton of hunters in Montana this year that came unglued when the R governor and his appointees tried to screw public land hunters. Politicians from both parties need watched as both can try and screw hunters...so enough of this BS that one party is pure and good and the other is evil...as far as I'm concerned they are all bad, some less bad than others depending on the issue and circumstance and so hunters/voters should never blindly support one political party over another. :bash:
I have no hatred for DIY hunters, unlike you I think there is room for both, I don't want to eliminate the other like you do. The rest of your gibberish I never commented on! This is why hunters can't get together, some like you are not willing to meet in the middle, its got to be all for your benefit!
Post by: Special T on March 22, 2022, 03:36:07 PM
It is very easy to get discouraged on the political front, damn Insley and all democrats. That is really counterproductive though. Stop looking at the big picture and concentrate on key races. Everybody's eyes are on the Commission now. If we had a sportsmen friendly Chair in the Senate Agriculture, Natural Resources and Parks Committee, any bad appointees would be gone. And do not think if we put the effort into putting the skids to Van de Wege other politicians wouldn't notice.
This idea the Ds are all against us may be true broadly but if a Legislator is with us on issues, it shouldn't matter what their party.
FYI the vote of one Democrat this session killed animal rights bills I was working against and probably the visual that she was willing to vote the way she did probably stopped other bills from advancing.
Blake was the best friend sportsmen ever had and he had a D behind his name. He gave us protection from the worst AR bills.
Just two examples.
It is pretty tough to pass a bill but easy to kill one with people in the right place. You don't have to control the Legislature to make a difference.
Very well said! Pin point targeting Van de Wege would be a wise choice for sportmen.get him beat in the election
Post by: idahohuntr on March 22, 2022, 03:51:38 PM
I have 0 hatred for outfitters. There is absolutely room and need for both. You favor government handouts for public resources and I personally favor free markets/capitalism. Gibberish...yes, I understand its highly inconvenient for you to discuss facts that don't support your statement that R's are all good for hunting and D's are all bad. My guess is the average participant in your forum knows enough about what's been going on in MT to see through the bs the R's leadership pulled/attempted to pull...even if you'd rather not discuss it.:rolleyes:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Your hatred of DIY hunters has been noted many times. You are right, Montana voters, by ballot initiative ended outfitter set asides in ~2011(?). Then in the dark of night Republican reps and the Governor basically brought them back with their new point scheme. Bottom line - don't give me this BS that D's are all bad for hunting and R's are all good. There were a crap ton of hunters in Montana this year that came unglued when the R governor and his appointees tried to screw public land hunters. Politicians from both parties need watched as both can try and screw hunters...so enough of this BS that one party is pure and good and the other is evil...as far as I'm concerned they are all bad, some less bad than others depending on the issue and circumstance and so hunters/voters should never blindly support one political party over another. :bash:
I have no hatred for DIY hunters, unlike you I think there is room for both, I don't want to eliminate the other like you do. The rest of your gibberish I never commented on! This is why hunters can't get together, some like you are not willing to meet in the middle, its got to be all for your benefit!
Post by: Tbar on March 22, 2022, 05:03:41 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.:yeah:
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
I think there is far more accountability in elected officials. Right now 3 are being guided, one is on another paying field and one is already established as a non consumptive supporter. Of the four remaining I have my fears about three off them. That said if there is a R vsD reality, what can joel McEntire in the 19th do for the situation. I know his predecessor would not have stood idle.
Post by: bigtex on March 22, 2022, 05:36:37 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.:yeah:
There are many instances of states with R majorities who have screwed over hunters, it's not just a D thing. While the Ds typically go after the actual season itself, the Rs typically go after lands and land access. Heck, the RNC in 2016 at their convention voted as part of their platform to have the sale of federal lands to states (who can't even afford the land they currently have as it is) or to private entities. Imagine having Weyerhauser, Hancock, or XYZ tribe buy up an entire ranger district of your former favorite National Forest, it could possibly happen. Several years ago there was a Republican state rep in the Tri-Cities who sponsored a bill to make it unlawful to access public waterways unless there was a restroom and other amenities on the public lands along the shoreline. So under the bill if your small little dirt WDFW boat launch didn't have a restroom you wouldn't be able to access the lake for any use.
Neither party is perfect.
Post by: NumaJohn on March 22, 2022, 05:48:14 PM
:yeah:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.:yeah:
There are many instances of states with R majorities who have screwed over hunters, it's not just a D thing. While the Ds typically go after the actual season itself, the Rs typically go after lands and land access. Heck, the RNC in 2016 at their convention voted as part of their platform to have the sale of federal lands to states (who can't even afford the land they currently have as it is) or to private entities. Imagine having Weyerhauser, Hancock, or XYZ tribe buy up an entire ranger district of your former favorite National Forest, it could possibly happen. Several years ago there was a Republican state rep in the Tri-Cities who sponsored a bill to make it unlawful to access public waterways unless there was a restroom and other amenities on the public lands along the shoreline. So under the bill if your small little dirt WDFW boat launch didn't have a restroom you wouldn't be able to access the lake for any use.
Neither party is perfect.
Well said, bigtex.
And as a native Montanan who still hunts in that state, I think the New Jersey billionaire governor is a disaster for hunters. He's all about the wealthy. For example, look at the too-sweet deal accorded the Wilks Brothers and their trophy hunt allocations. None of that is about Ds, or Rs, or Is, it's about greed and a vile disrespect for the tradition of hunting and fishing established by some of the brightest minds in our country's history.
John
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 22, 2022, 06:36:32 PM
I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
All politicians and parties need to be kept in check IMO. I'm starting to think the best move would be to make Commission positions an elected office...one from each region, not attributed by population. Then voters could focus on just that issue when they vote for a commissioner. Fish and Wildlife resources are becoming so valuable to the public it makes no sense to allow unelected bureaucrats to wield this much unchecked power.
The problem is the moderates are voting in Demorats, they don’t want a Republican governor it’s obviously clear if you look at the past elections. Remember the Dino Rossi vs christine gregoire elections, Dino was as moderate as they get for Republicans. She stole the election from him. Some day we’re going to get to play conservatives vs liberals pew pew.😉
The liberals are already screwing us, I’ll take my chances with the conservatives, Culp wouldn’t have let this happen.😉
Post by: bigtex on March 22, 2022, 07:05:12 PM
The problem is the moderates are voting in Demorats, they don’t want a Republican governor it’s obviously clear if you look at the past elections. Remember the Dino Rossi vs christine gregoire elections, Dino was as moderate as they get for Republicans. She stole the election from him. Some day we’re going to get to play conservatives vs liberals pew pew.😉The problem is WA's population is around 45% D, 35% R, with the remaining 20% going either way. So knowing this if you were the republican party knowing you're already in a number deficit wouldn't you want to run someone who could actually pick off many of those in the middle and maybe some of the most moderate Ds?
In Inslee's first governor's election in 2012 he actually had 16,000 less votes than Gregoire did four years before him. Yet Rob McKenna (moderate) had 84,000 more votes than Dino did four years before him. Other than the infamous Gregoire-Rossi election in 2004 the 2012 Inslee-McKenna election was the closest governors race in 20 years. It's no coincidence that the closest governors races in the past 30 years in WA have come when there's a moderate R running. This is why the big name republicans endorsed moderate Raul Garcia for governor in 2020 and not Culp.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 07:09:45 PM
The problem is the moderates are voting in Demorats, they don’t want a Republican governor it’s obviously clear if you look at the past elections. Remember the Dino Rossi vs christine gregoire elections, Dino was as moderate as they get for Republicans. She stole the election from him. Some day we’re going to get to play conservatives vs liberals pew pew.😉The problem is WA's population is around 45% D, 35% R, with the remaining 20% going either way. So knowing this if you were the republican party knowing you're already in a number deficit wouldn't you want to run someone who could actually pick off many of those in the middle and maybe some of the most moderate Ds?
In Inslee's first governor's election in 2012 he actually had 16,000 less votes than Gregoire did four years before him. Yet Rob McKenna (moderate) had 84,000 more votes than Dino did four years before him. Other than the infamous Gregoire-Rossi election in 2004 the 2012 Inslee-McKenna election was the closest governors race in 20 years. It's no coincidence that the closest governors races in the past 30 years in WA have come when there's a moderate R running. This is why the big name republicans endorsed moderate Raul Garcia for governor in 2020 and not Culp.
A lot of moderates and independents went for Biden thinking he was moderate, boy did they get a bait and switch!
A lot more bait and switch is to come, dems know come campaign season they need tose swing votes, and pander to the middle, like Biden, then seat secured, they go full facistard
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 22, 2022, 07:29:48 PM
The problem is the moderates are voting in Demorats, they don’t want a Republican governor it’s obviously clear if you look at the past elections. Remember the Dino Rossi vs christine gregoire elections, Dino was as moderate as they get for Republicans. She stole the election from him. Some day we’re going to get to play conservatives vs liberals pew pew.😉The problem is WA's population is around 45% D, 35% R, with the remaining 20% going either way. So knowing this if you were the republican party knowing you're already in a number deficit wouldn't you want to run someone who could actually pick off many of those in the middle and maybe some of the most moderate Ds?
In Inslee's first governor's election in 2012 he actually had 16,000 less votes than Gregoire did four years before him. Yet Rob McKenna (moderate) had 84,000 more votes than Dino did four years before him. Other than the infamous Gregoire-Rossi election in 2004 the 2012 Inslee-McKenna election was the closest governors race in 20 years. It's no coincidence that the closest governors races in the past 30 years in WA have come when there's a moderate R running. This is why the big name republicans endorsed moderate Raul Garcia for governor in 2020 and not Culp.
A lot of moderates and independents went for Biden thinking he was moderate, boy did they get a bait and switch!
A lot more bait and switch is to come, dems know come campaign season they need tose swing votes, and pander to the middle, like Biden, then seat secured, they go full facistard
Yep, and the moderates are too dumb to see it every time.🤬
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 07:47:11 PM
Post by: Twispriver on March 22, 2022, 08:05:37 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 22, 2022, 08:35:40 PM
And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
No Republican will ever be good enough for the moderates in this state it’s been proven.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IH7ddQs7vg0
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 08:43:29 PM
And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
No Republican will ever be good enough for the moderates in this state it’s been proven.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IH7ddQs7vg0
Yup, just like they also preach about reaching across the isle until elected!
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 08:57:16 PM
And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
Uh huh, and what was wrong with Culp?
I can tell you what was, and is, wrong with Inslee.
Post by: bearpaw on March 22, 2022, 09:02:01 PM
I have 0 hatred for outfitters. There is absolutely room and need for both. You favor government handouts for public resources and I personally favor free markets/capitalism. Gibberish...yes, I understand its highly inconvenient for you to discuss facts that don't support your statement that R's are all good for hunting and D's are all bad. My guess is the average participant in your forum knows enough about what's been going on in MT to see through the bs the R's leadership pulled/attempted to pull...even if you'd rather not discuss it.:rolleyes:I think its a massive mistake to to simplify this down to an R or D issue...and I think alienating moderate democrats is the worst possible thing we could do in this state. And if you think everything would be fine simply by replacing all D's with R's...take a look at how bad the Montana Republicans tried to screw Montana hunters earlier this year...and how they did screw NR DIY hunters last year.
Nice how you frame your narrative. Your hatred for outfitters has been noted many times. I'll remind you that outfitter tags were taken away a few years ago from outfitted hunters and outfitters. DIY hunters only gained at the expense of outfitted hunters. So nothing was really taken away from DIY hunters.
Your hatred of DIY hunters has been noted many times. You are right, Montana voters, by ballot initiative ended outfitter set asides in ~2011(?). Then in the dark of night Republican reps and the Governor basically brought them back with their new point scheme. Bottom line - don't give me this BS that D's are all bad for hunting and R's are all good. There were a crap ton of hunters in Montana this year that came unglued when the R governor and his appointees tried to screw public land hunters. Politicians from both parties need watched as both can try and screw hunters...so enough of this BS that one party is pure and good and the other is evil...as far as I'm concerned they are all bad, some less bad than others depending on the issue and circumstance and so hunters/voters should never blindly support one political party over another. :bash:
I have no hatred for DIY hunters, unlike you I think there is room for both, I don't want to eliminate the other like you do. The rest of your gibberish I never commented on! This is why hunters can't get together, some like you are not willing to meet in the middle, its got to be all for your benefit!
You made a statement that tags were taken from DIY hunters, it was misleading and actually untrue over the long term, tags were actually taken away from outfitted hunters and given to the DIY. Outfitted hunters didn't get those tags back, what outfitted hunters got was an additional preference point in the process and hopefully that helps the industry. What has really made it harder for DIY hunters as well as outfitted hunters to get tags are all the services promoting the tag process in the western states to DIY hunters, that has greatly increased the DIY demand for tags. I'm not saying these services shouldn't be allowed, I'm just clarifying what has actually taken place over the last decade!
I'm still laughing about your comment that I hate DIY hunters, I maintain this forum for DIY hunters, dude you really need to step back and think before spouting! I'm very often a DIY hunter myself, I must hate myself by your account! :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: hunter399 on March 22, 2022, 09:02:16 PM
The out of state hunting ..... Washington is to blame for some of it. Other states are looking out for there residents first. And giving the advantage to there residents.
I see no harm in that.
It's turned to pay to play ,it's gonna cost ya ,if you want to double dip your potato chip in multiple states.
Post by: pickardjw on March 22, 2022, 09:12:03 PM
And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
Personally would have liked to have seen Joshua Freed as the R candidate against Inslee. I'm not a political buff by any means but he seemed like the guy with more of a chance. Maybe it was just because Culp was the favored R candidate but I read wayyy more bad press about him. Still voted for Culp in the main election but it was a foregone conclusion by then.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 09:19:30 PM
Post by: HunterStrait on March 22, 2022, 09:28:38 PM
I think the biggest fault is that we don't have term limits for state governors and Inslee has been in power for far too long, and he lacks any sort of awareness of what is important in our wildlife management.
I don't think shaming people for not voting red is okay.
its like the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" kind of crap. I wouldn't want a republican wackjob in office any more than a Democrat wackjob.
Post by: Humptulips on March 22, 2022, 09:46:03 PM
Hate to say it but Culp was from the wrong side of the State. Viewed by too many as a yokel from the sticks.And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
Uh huh, and what was wrong with Culp?
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 09:51:15 PM
I think pointing fingers and blaming other hunters becuase we have a *censored*ty governor/president isn't going to help anything becuase in the end its going to affect literally everyone who hunts.
I think the biggest fault is that we don't have term limits for state governors and Inslee has been in power for far too long, and he lacks any sort of awareness of what is important in our wildlife management.
I don't think shaming people for not voting red is okay.
its like the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" kind of crap. I wouldn't want a republican wackjob in office any more than a Democrat wackjob.
I disagree, they need their noses rubbed in it like a dog that crapped on the carpet. A dog that just can't learn to not crap on the carpet. I'm sick of it, I'm sick of this 'reach across the isle' crap because its only empty words. I don't care about terrible R's in other states, I don't care to argue about whataboutism, or strawmen or any of that crap.
Dems have utterly screwed this state, not R's. Seattle was a nice place when we had a Republican governor, it's been in steady decline ever since. Have dems in Washington made this state better the last 20 years? Then why keep voting for them? It's literally insanity to keep voting the same way and expect to get something different.
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 09:56:46 PM
Hate to say it but Culp was from the wrong side of the State. Viewed by too many as a yokel from the sticks.And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
Uh huh, and what was wrong with Culp?
Of course he was, media in Seattle said so, its gotta be true.
What was it they were saying, hold your nose and vote for Inslee? Something like that
It didn't have to be Culp, but he won the primary, anyone other than Inslee...was not Inslee!
Post by: baldopepper on March 22, 2022, 10:14:07 PM
You realize that with no term limits Inslee is very likely to run again. Hopefully the R's will realize that running another candidate who thinks he can ride Trumps coat tails to victory in this state Is suicide. I promise, many democrats are hoping a Culp clone is the opposition again. Please come up with a viable alternative.Hate to say it but Culp was from the wrong side of the State. Viewed by too many as a yokel from the sticks.And the moral of the story is that if you continue trotting out guys like Culp you'll continue being governed by guys like Inslee.
Uh huh, and what was wrong with Culp?
Of course he was, media in Seattle said so, its gotta be true.
What was it they were saying, hold your nose and vote for Inslee? Something like that
It didn't have to be Culp, but he won the primary, anyone other than Inslee...was not Inslee!
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 10:18:48 PM
Warm bag of dog feces...I'm voting for it!
Tetm limits are a non-starter, neither R nor D want term limited.
I don't either, I'd rather have intelligent voters!!
(Not gonna get that either)
Post by: KFhunter on March 22, 2022, 10:23:59 PM
Dems voted Biden because he wasn't Trump, why can't we e do the same?
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2022, 10:29:13 PM
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
habitat? like the carpet of trees they dont log? solid timber is not great habitat. Ill take burns where they dont log
I don't see many other hunters either, the road closures are keeping them condensed into smaller areas. You and I both agree KF that roads we used to travel are blocked off. This leads to slower fire response times and that reduces habitat when it burns. Will take several years for it to come back.
Post by: huntnnw on March 22, 2022, 10:54:49 PM
You're so off base with what I said. You keep pointing out hunter numbers and over crowding. Where did I say a single thing about over crowding or hunter numbers? The simple truth is mule deer numbers continue to plummet and we just keep banging away. Sure up in your neck of the woods bears and cats are pretty out of control, but there are large areas of this state with no bears and very few cats yet MD numbers continue to plummet. USABLE habitat continues to shrink by the day but we continue to sell unlimited tags, multi season permits by the hundreds, damage tags for doe's and piles of doe tags in the draws. We can shoot two bears, hunt coyotes year round, and cats almost year round but very few actually do. So whats the realistic answer to help get mule deer back on their feet? Open more roads to increase access to kill more deer? Continue to hunt them unrestricted? Continue killing females? WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING. How insane is that!?!!where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Also your 2% draw odds with 15 points is dishonest and you know it. If it was a statewide draw there would be thousands of tags not dozens like there currently is.
Listen, we wiped all predators from the landscape at the turn of the century when the population of the US was 1/3 of what it was. Of course we had an ungulate boom (which I'd give almost anything to have witnessed) but that was man made, not natural. If we want these species for our children and our grandchildren to be able to hunt we gotta check some selfishness at the door. Yeah we need to kill predators, but we more importantly gotta start preserving habitat. Look to Wyoming and what that state is doing with mule deer migration corridor preservation and its effect on populations.
We can keep screaming predators at the top of our lungs but guess what folks, you aren't gonna bait bears in WA in your lifetime. You're not gonna run cats with hounds in WA in your lifetime. I'll be right there with everyone else screaming we need those back till I can't scream anymore but we gotta quit putting everything on predators. We gotta put our voice behind things that can still actually make a difference :twocents:
Karl this simply isn't true!QuoteWASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING.
There is no limit in Idaho or Montana for resident mule deer hunting, maybe limits on non-residents, but not for residents. I'm not sure about other states but suspect there are no limits on resident deer tags in some other states, thinking Wyoming for starters?
comparing ID mule deer to WA mule deer is laughable! We have the lowest available habitat in ANY western state for mule deer! second highest people population to that of CA. Yet we have a free for all mule deer seasons. MANY states regulate their mule deer. WA does absolutley NOTHING but sell tags. ID may have very generous seasons, but they are good at monitoring harvest. You can hunt from Canada to UT in ID for mule deer! staggering amount of terrain to hunt compared to WA
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 23, 2022, 05:38:48 AM
Post by: huntnnw on March 23, 2022, 06:18:02 AM
You can bet non resident limitations are coming for all states. Its the trend already happening
better question what state doesnt have non resident limitations? WA is the only one
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2022, 06:38:48 AM
You're so off base with what I said. You keep pointing out hunter numbers and over crowding. Where did I say a single thing about over crowding or hunter numbers? The simple truth is mule deer numbers continue to plummet and we just keep banging away. Sure up in your neck of the woods bears and cats are pretty out of control, but there are large areas of this state with no bears and very few cats yet MD numbers continue to plummet. USABLE habitat continues to shrink by the day but we continue to sell unlimited tags, multi season permits by the hundreds, damage tags for doe's and piles of doe tags in the draws. We can shoot two bears, hunt coyotes year round, and cats almost year round but very few actually do. So whats the realistic answer to help get mule deer back on their feet? Open more roads to increase access to kill more deer? Continue to hunt them unrestricted? Continue killing females? WASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING. How insane is that!?!!where in my statements did I claim we have more hunters now than in the 90's and how is that stat relevant to current game populations, usable habitat, and fixing the issues at hand?not very many western states allow multiple weapon season hunting and if they do it usually involves an additional fee.I don't agree that everyone should be able to hunt all seasons. It's already too crowded as it is, that would only make it worse, and it's the reason in the first place many years ago that they went to a choose your weapon type system. However I do agree people should try to cut back as much as they possibly can on how many licenses and applications you purchase.
So explain to me then. Why do people choose to spend money in other states where they can hunt with their choice of several weapons. I believe that you are one who does this. I also get that there are different species you can hunt. But other than speed goats we have pretty much the same choices.
Fact is MS (deer specifically) puts a lot of additional strain on a limited resource. Ive been shouting for years that this state needs to tighten up deer hunting for the sake of our mule deer. We are THE ONLY western state with completely wide open and unbridled deer hunting and we have embarrassingly low deer numbers. We have all screamed "follow the science" in recent months due to the spring bear debacle but we fall silent on mule deer when following the science means less opportunity.
As for hitting wdfw in the wallet, that does nothing more than feeding into exactly what Inslee and his anti's want. Their goal is NO HUNTING so if everyone stops participating they have achieved their goal. Its quite literally exactly what they want. License sales are a mere drop in the bucket that is WA states annual budget. They'll reallocate some funds to pay for blue bird boxes and wolves and they won't give hunting a second thought.
Don't we have fewer overall hunters than the heydays of the early 90's?
Too many hunters isn't the problem, I rarely bump into them. The problem is hunters being corralled in smaller spaces due to road closures and dwindling access, and less game due to lack of predator management.
I believe the focus is wrong, we need to focus on increasing access to timberlands, we need USFS,DNR etc to focus on opening closed roads, and we need to focus on predator management rather than reducing hunters even more. We're already a 3% minority and your ideas will further reduce that, why have hunting at all for a 1 or 2% minority that squabble about there being too many hunters? Shoot yourself in the foot for better hunting and less pressure in a couple years?
Also your 2% draw odds with 15 points is dishonest and you know it. If it was a statewide draw there would be thousands of tags not dozens like there currently is.
Listen, we wiped all predators from the landscape at the turn of the century when the population of the US was 1/3 of what it was. Of course we had an ungulate boom (which I'd give almost anything to have witnessed) but that was man made, not natural. If we want these species for our children and our grandchildren to be able to hunt we gotta check some selfishness at the door. Yeah we need to kill predators, but we more importantly gotta start preserving habitat. Look to Wyoming and what that state is doing with mule deer migration corridor preservation and its effect on populations.
We can keep screaming predators at the top of our lungs but guess what folks, you aren't gonna bait bears in WA in your lifetime. You're not gonna run cats with hounds in WA in your lifetime. I'll be right there with everyone else screaming we need those back till I can't scream anymore but we gotta quit putting everything on predators. We gotta put our voice behind things that can still actually make a difference :twocents:
Karl this simply isn't true!QuoteWASHINGTON IS THE ONLY WESTERN STATE WITH UNRESTRICTED MULE DEER HUNTING.
There is no limit in Idaho or Montana for resident mule deer hunting, maybe limits on non-residents, but not for residents. I'm not sure about other states but suspect there are no limits on resident deer tags in some other states, thinking Wyoming for starters?
comparing ID mule deer to WA mule deer is laughable! We have the lowest available habitat in ANY western state for mule deer! second highest people population to that of CA. Yet we have a free for all mule deer seasons. MANY states regulate their mule deer. WA does absolutley NOTHING but sell tags. ID may have very generous seasons, but they are good at monitoring harvest. You can hunt from Canada to UT in ID for mule deer! staggering amount of terrain to hunt compared to WA
I wasn't comparing the hunting, I was only pointing out that WA isn't the only state with over the counter mule deer tags which was falsely stated. It's not that I think mule deer hunting is good in WA, but I do believe if tags are limited we will have fewer hunters than we already have, so I don't think it's a good idea to limit tags in WA.
There are other ways to limit harvest, create more limited entry areas, try two point only, three point only, or four point only. I would point out and compare Idaho in this way, since mule deer herds have declined due to harsh winters and are slow to come back, mule deer doe hunting has been eliminated statewide and predator hunting has been increased further, all cougar quotas were removed this year, it's open statewide until March 31.
I'm aware predator hunting will likely not be increased in WA, but isn't mule doe hunting still occurring? In WA if you were to pick five test units that currently have doe hunting, remove all doe hunting and implement greater restriction on buck harvest, herds in those units would likely increase?
Perhaps three point only (only three points on at least one side can be taken) to eliminate those big three pointers doing all the breeding. Forkies and 4x4's would be protected, if a 2.5 year buck becomes a small four he is protected, he's the one you want breeding, not the three pointers.
I'm not saying "it's got to be my way" I'm just trying to throw out some ideas so we don't lose more hunters in WA.
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2022, 06:40:46 AM
You can bet non resident limitations are coming for all states. Its the trend already happening
better question what state doesnt have non resident limitations? WA is the only one
even better questions: Will that make any difference? How many mule deer are taken by NR hunters? What if other states reciprocate?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 06:55:28 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2022, 07:23:13 AM
Its not a false statement Dale. You are twisting my words. I said unrestricted not OTC. You even quoted it to respond to it then changed what I said. MT and ID very much control overall harvest. They have OTC resident tags but capped NR tags. They also have more game, more land, and less people. They know resident hunters are X, and NR hunters are Y, which equals Z. Literally every single person in the country could theoretically purchase a WA deer tag and come hunt. Obviously thats an extreme example but its a statement of fact.
OK, sorry I misunderstood what you said, my bad.
But honestly, I don't think non-residents are a problem in this state, but maybe someone has numbers to prove that wrong? To make a difference we probably need to address factors that are having the biggest impact, that is likely resident harvest in WA. Predators are not an option in WA.
Let me add this, I know many hunters in states with limited resident tags, that is their biggest complaint about their state management, they are forced many years to go out of state to hunt or they don't deer or elk hunt, in some cases they quit hunting. They also worry that their kids will have no interest in hunting if they can't go hunting each year.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 07:43:24 AM
And to be clear, of course predators are a large data point. Look at the Blues study and its glaringly obvious whats happening to elk down there,, but like i said above, soooo many areas of the west where MD are constantly dwindling where there are few predators to deal with besides some coyotes.. As I stated before, we aren't getting hounds and bait back. Its a moot point. But as Shane mentioned previously, we can still hunt the hell out of predators in this state. Predator hunting is hard and people just choose not to do it. We can all still kill two bears each, a cat, and as many coyotes as we want :twocents:
Post by: Special T on March 23, 2022, 11:41:16 AM
We just have to agree to disagree on predators Dale. MD are on the decline ACROSS the west, not just WA. Large portions of mulde deer range that are mostly free from wolves, bears, and cats yet still declining. Once again look to WY and their research on migration corridor fragmentation. Every hour of every day humans are chewing up winter range and cutting off migration routes. Wyoming's collar data shows us that those migration routes sre lost after 1 generation. One freaking generation! Its crazy to hear you say that habitat loss is almost a non issue when there is endless data showing the opposite. The US population has doubled in the last 50 years, and the west is being settled like they fired back up the Oregon trail. Housing developments creep into the foothills on the daily.
And to be clear, of course predators are a large data point. Look at the Blues study and its glaringly obvious whats happening to elk down there,, but like i said above, soooo many areas of the west where MD are constantly dwindling where there are few predators to deal with besides some coyotes.. As I stated before, we aren't getting hounds and bait back. Its a moot point. But as Shane mentioned previously, we can still hunt the hell out of predators in this state. Predator hunting is hard and people just choose not to do it. We can all still kill two bears each, a cat, and as many coyotes as we want :twocents:
I don't think it's an either or habitat vs predators. I think folks like me, and perhaps Dale, see that excess predators arnt helpful even if you think habitat is a problem. I thinkmitnwould be great to do a collar study to figure out travel corridors. But how how donyounget the info when your animals are eaten. Was it only 9 of the 125 elk calves that made it through the blues study?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 12:41:06 PM
Post by: Humptulips on March 23, 2022, 01:00:26 PM
I return to predators as the main problem.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 01:03:04 PM
Does the current state of forest management make me sick? Yes. Does losing spring bear, hounds, bait, and the moratorium on killing wolves make me sick? YES! But to be so short sighted and stubborn as to put sole blame on the backs of predators is disappointing as you all have shown you have the intellect to look deeper than that.
We aren't getting hounds and bait back. Spring bear is fun but its a small management tool. We can more than make up for 146 bears if we all just put more effort into actually hunting them. And let's be honest, the likelihood of ever hunting a wolf in WA or OR in any of our lifetimes is closer to zero than it is 100%. Habitat enhancement is something we can still control and almost everyone can get behind. Predator killing divides the room before there is even a conversation started.
Post by: callturner on March 23, 2022, 01:12:29 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 23, 2022, 01:19:52 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 01:29:11 PM
Post by: buckfvr on March 23, 2022, 01:35:18 PM
The voice of the hunters in this state is but a whisper. The other 97+% dont really give a damn how we feel. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 23, 2022, 01:40:55 PM
So what about areas with very little predation or stagnant predator populations John? How do you explain away those deer populations?
Which areas would those be, my friend? Bears and cougars are overpopulated all over the state. Even coyotes are thick in the cities as well as the countryside. Again, I'm not saying there aren't other factors. But I think predators play a major role. Look at the densely populated eastern states that have massive deer populations, for instance. What don't they have? An overabundance of predators. They haven't had near as much sustainable habitat as we have for centuries. Yet their ungulates thrive. Wait until CWD arrives. We won't have any MD left.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 23, 2022, 02:02:04 PM
this state will drain every last cent out of our wildlife resources to the point of total collapse. Being closer to 68 then 67, I cant even begin to count how many places I have hunted over the years that are now all houses and private property. The states population explosion has encroached on winter range in most every area that had any. I have many fond memories of the past as a hunter and I stand by the good ol days are forever gone. Its actually sad knowing how bad it is now by comparison to the past. It is a real head scratcher to listen to guys talk about how good deer or elk in this area or that in Wa. is right now when I know none of it compares now or ever will again with the past.
The voice of the hunters in this state is but a whisper. The other 97+% dont really give a damn how we feel. :twocents:
Yep.🤬
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 03:26:30 PM
let's unpack this a bit.So what about areas with very little predation or stagnant predator populations John? How do you explain away those deer populations?
Which areas would those be, my friend? Bears and cougars are overpopulated all over the state. Even coyotes are thick in the cities as well as the countryside. Again, I'm not saying there aren't other factors. But I think predators play a major role. Look at the densely populated eastern states that have massive deer populations, for instance. What don't they have? An overabundance of predators. They haven't had near as much sustainable habitat as we have for centuries. Yet their ungulates thrive. Wait until CWD arrives. We won't have any MD left.
Coyotes: As far as I can tell nobody is really counting coyotes. With that said, my own personal experience of 20 years as a hard core coyote hunter and solidly 1k+ dogs under my belt from the crest trail to the idaho boarder I can say with confidence there are no more coyotes than there has ever been in that 20 years. If anything with the boom in popularity of coyote hunting one could argue there's a few less than there used to be.
Bears: every last one of you guys arguing with me have been shouting from the roof tops that wdfw commission needs to follow the science on bears. Well a big factor in how bios measure bear densities is hunter harvest. In general, the more animals the greater the harvest. When we look at bear harvest over the last decade the only measurable increase is starting in 2019. Coincidentally thats the same year we went to 2 bears statewide and an Aug 1 opener. Before that it was 1425-1500 bears statewide like clockwork. So how is it we have to follow the science when it comes to spring bear but we can ignore the science when playing the blame game :dunno: there's definitely some problem areas, like the NE corner where there are areas you can see far more bears than deer. Or the blues in the spring where its nothing to see 5-10+ bears in a weekend if the onions are ripe. Though the recent blues study shows bears are less of a burden on calves than originally most of us thought (me included).
Cougars: There are 49 gmu's in WA that annually record 0-1 cat kills over all categories. Statewide harvest fluctuates but for the most part is within 50 cats or so. So how is it that if ungulate populations continue to tank (less food) cat populations continue to explode even though harvest data doesn't support that? How is it that all animals face starvation and population decreases when their food sources deplete but somehow predators go the opposite direction 🤔 if the science is there I'm sure not seeing it.
And once again for those that refuse to read what I keep saying over and over, PREDATORS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, but no more a part as human encroachment.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 03:50:52 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 23, 2022, 04:03:01 PM
let's unpack this a bit.So what about areas with very little predation or stagnant predator populations John? How do you explain away those deer populations?
Which areas would those be, my friend? Bears and cougars are overpopulated all over the state. Even coyotes are thick in the cities as well as the countryside. Again, I'm not saying there aren't other factors. But I think predators play a major role. Look at the densely populated eastern states that have massive deer populations, for instance. What don't they have? An overabundance of predators. They haven't had near as much sustainable habitat as we have for centuries. Yet their ungulates thrive. Wait until CWD arrives. We won't have any MD left.
Coyotes: As far as I can tell nobody is really counting coyotes. With that said, my own personal experience of 20 years as a hard core coyote hunter and solidly 1k+ dogs under my belt from the crest trail to the idaho boarder I can say with confidence there are no more coyotes than there has ever been in that 20 years. If anything with the boom in popularity of coyote hunting one could argue there's a few less than there used to be.
Bears: every last one of you guys arguing with me have been shouting from the roof tops that wdfw commission needs to follow the science on bears. Well a big factor in how bios measure bear densities is hunter harvest. In general, the more animals the greater the harvest. When we look at bear harvest over the last decade the only measurable increase is starting in 2019. Coincidentally thats the same year we went to 2 bears statewide and an Aug 1 opener. Before that it was 1425-1500 bears statewide like clockwork. So how is it we have to follow the science when it comes to spring bear but we can ignore the science when playing the blame game :dunno: there's definitely some problem areas, like the NE corner where there are areas you can see far more bears than deer. Or the blues in the spring where its nothing to see 5-10+ bears in a weekend if the onions are ripe. Though the recent blues study shows bears are less of a burden on calves than originally most of us thought (me included).
Cougars: There are 49 gmu's in WA that annually record 0-1 cat kills over all categories. Statewide harvest fluctuates but for the most part is within 50 cats or so. So how is it that if ungulate populations continue to tank (less food) cat populations continue to explode even though harvest data doesn't support that? How is it that all animals face starvation and population decreases when their food sources deplete but somehow predators go the opposite direction 🤔 if the science is there I'm sure not seeing it.
And once again for those that refuse to read what I keep saying over and over, PREDATORS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, but no more a part as human encroachment.
[/quote personally.think you are pretty much right on. Only area I know of that are still holding a fair population of deer are those areas that have a high density of private property. Not necessarily the packed in areas, but like portions of Stevens county where zoning has held back packed in building, but has not stopped owners from posting their 5-20 acre lots. Frankly, the herds in the immediate area around me are doing well..Predators don't read no trespassing signs, so I tend to lean towards limited human intrusion to the health of the herd.I do believe we spend too much time on the wolf issues and not enough on the lion problem. Used to be a big deal to see a lion, now it's almost a daily sighting if you are out and about much
Post by: hunter399 on March 23, 2022, 04:32:23 PM
Coyote are in higher numbers.
Has anybody ever seen a coyote run a deer into the dirt on a bad drought year.
Or see the tracks in the snow ,and think to yourself this is a pack of yotes .Not a set of tracks.
Anyway this will BLOW your mind.
The whole state needs to go to Permit only for areas or species that have an APR. Antler point restriction.
That would mean all mule deer and true spike elk any other areas like palouse south units that have 3 PT min whitetail.
All those units with a current APR would be pay to play permit draw only.
I know it sounds bad 👎 ..... It's only like half the state would become permit only deer and elk hunting.
According to WDFW antler point restriction don't help population of deer and elk.
Oh and cut all female harvest in any APR area.
That should keep the predators feed for awhile. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: KFhunter on March 23, 2022, 05:36:06 PM
let's unpack this a bit.So what about areas with very little predation or stagnant predator populations John? How do you explain away those deer populations?
Which areas would those be, my friend? Bears and cougars are overpopulated all over the state. Even coyotes are thick in the cities as well as the countryside. Again, I'm not saying there aren't other factors. But I think predators play a major role. Look at the densely populated eastern states that have massive deer populations, for instance. What don't they have? An overabundance of predators. They haven't had near as much sustainable habitat as we have for centuries. Yet their ungulates thrive. Wait until CWD arrives. We won't have any MD left.
Coyotes: As far as I can tell nobody is really counting coyotes. With that said, my own personal experience of 20 years as a hard core coyote hunter and solidly 1k+ dogs under my belt from the crest trail to the idaho boarder I can say with confidence there are no more coyotes than there has ever been in that 20 years. If anything with the boom in popularity of coyote hunting one could argue there's a few less than there used to be.
Bears: every last one of you guys arguing with me have been shouting from the roof tops that wdfw commission needs to follow the science on bears. Well a big factor in how bios measure bear densities is hunter harvest. In general, the more animals the greater the harvest. When we look at bear harvest over the last decade the only measurable increase is starting in 2019. Coincidentally thats the same year we went to 2 bears statewide and an Aug 1 opener. Before that it was 1425-1500 bears statewide like clockwork. So how is it we have to follow the science when it comes to spring bear but we can ignore the science when playing the blame game :dunno: there's definitely some problem areas, like the NE corner where there are areas you can see far more bears than deer. Or the blues in the spring where its nothing to see 5-10+ bears in a weekend if the onions are ripe. Though the recent blues study shows bears are less of a burden on calves than originally most of us thought (me included).
Cougars: There are 49 gmu's in WA that annually record 0-1 cat kills over all categories. Statewide harvest fluctuates but for the most part is within 50 cats or so. So how is it that if ungulate populations continue to tank (less food) cat populations continue to explode even though harvest data doesn't support that? How is it that all animals face starvation and population decreases when their food sources deplete but somehow predators go the opposite direction 🤔 if the science is there I'm sure not seeing it.
And once again for those that refuse to read what I keep saying over and over, PREDATORS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, but no more a part as human encroachment.
I don't know how to stop encroachment, private property once family farms turned subdivision and timber company lands selling off timberless scrub lands and blocking access due to slobs.
We had a scare of fed lands being sold to the state, but that scare has past, no one wants to sell off federal lands, there's no political path there any longer.
The state is trading lands here and there, but to my knowledge isn't selling it off on a grand scale :dunno:
Sooo, what's the solution to homes being built on winter range? Stop illegal migration is one small factor, those once swank California neighborhoods being turned into homeless street toilets push those city folk into the country (and other cities, states as well if course)
Other than mass deportations, stopping flow of drugs, welfare revamp and cleaning up cities I got no ideas how to stop homes in deer ranges.
So I talk about things that can (in theory) be done, but honestly here Karl...I see no viable path before us that will turn hunting around in this state anytime soon, the wrong leaders are in power and it is opposite of thier agenda to increase hunting opportunities :sry:
I didn't vote for any of them
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 23, 2022, 06:04:46 PM
I most definitely don't have all the answers or even a few of the answers but a thing or two I see that can be done on the habitat front is first we need to identify current migration corridors and winter ranges. Not what they were 40 years ago but real time. From there we need to identify what's still in play that can be gobbled up. Im a poor pepsi guy but there is power in numbers. RMEF, MDF, etc do this stuff all the time though I have my skeptical glasses on when it comes to the effectiveness of many of these orgs. @Rainier10 is doing exactly this kind of thing with his land purchases and he has seen the benefits of it in a relatively short time period. It can be done. All the while we can still all get out and shoot some predators. Unlimited coyotes. 2 bears per big game hunter, and toss some snow shoes on, grab the fox pro and go walk down a cat. Thats something every single person can do right now.
Current habitat enhancement. As I stated before, just because its land doesn't make it usable and viable habitat. 1,000 acres of cheat doesn't do deer much good. The high country is the high country. Mostly unchanged in our lifetimes but regardless of the quality of the summer range, if the winter range won't support the numbers the summer range will go unused.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 23, 2022, 06:33:21 PM
I would guess a few taxes would do....a state income tax that even targeted retirement (as long as it was higher than California's). I think there would be a lot of empty houses and unfinished houses.
I don't know how to stop encroachment, private property once family farms turned subdivision and timber company lands selling off timberless scrub lands and blocking access due to slobs.
We had a scare of fed lands being sold to the state, but that scare has past, no one wants to sell off federal lands, there's no political path there any longer.
The state is trading lands here and there, but to my knowledge isn't selling it off on a grand scale :dunno:
Sooo, what's the solution to homes being built on winter range? Stop illegal migration is one small factor, those once swank California neighborhoods being turned into homeless street toilets push those city folk into the country (and other cities, states as well if course)
Other than mass deportations, stopping flow of drugs, welfare revamp and cleaning up cities I got no ideas how to stop homes in deer ranges.
So I talk about things that can (in theory) be done, but honestly here Karl...I see no viable path before us that will turn hunting around in this state anytime soon, the wrong leaders are in power and it is opposite of thier agenda to increase hunting opportunities :sry:
I didn't vote for any of them
Post by: baldopepper on March 23, 2022, 06:41:28 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 23, 2022, 08:02:42 PM
Post by: huntnnw on March 23, 2022, 10:01:32 PM
let's unpack this a bit.So what about areas with very little predation or stagnant predator populations John? How do you explain away those deer populations?
Which areas would those be, my friend? Bears and cougars are overpopulated all over the state. Even coyotes are thick in the cities as well as the countryside. Again, I'm not saying there aren't other factors. But I think predators play a major role. Look at the densely populated eastern states that have massive deer populations, for instance. What don't they have? An overabundance of predators. They haven't had near as much sustainable habitat as we have for centuries. Yet their ungulates thrive. Wait until CWD arrives. We won't have any MD left.
Coyotes: As far as I can tell nobody is really counting coyotes. With that said, my own personal experience of 20 years as a hard core coyote hunter and solidly 1k+ dogs under my belt from the crest trail to the idaho boarder I can say with confidence there are no more coyotes than there has ever been in that 20 years. If anything with the boom in popularity of coyote hunting one could argue there's a few less than there used to be.
Bears: every last one of you guys arguing with me have been shouting from the roof tops that wdfw commission needs to follow the science on bears. Well a big factor in how bios measure bear densities is hunter harvest. In general, the more animals the greater the harvest. When we look at bear harvest over the last decade the only measurable increase is starting in 2019. Coincidentally thats the same year we went to 2 bears statewide and an Aug 1 opener. Before that it was 1425-1500 bears statewide like clockwork. So how is it we have to follow the science when it comes to spring bear but we can ignore the science when playing the blame game :dunno: there's definitely some problem areas, like the NE corner where there are areas you can see far more bears than deer. Or the blues in the spring where its nothing to see 5-10+ bears in a weekend if the onions are ripe. Though the recent blues study shows bears are less of a burden on calves than originally most of us thought (me included).
Cougars: There are 49 gmu's in WA that annually record 0-1 cat kills over all categories. Statewide harvest fluctuates but for the most part is within 50 cats or so. So how is it that if ungulate populations continue to tank (less food) cat populations continue to explode even though harvest data doesn't support that? How is it that all animals face starvation and population decreases when their food sources deplete but somehow predators go the opposite direction 🤔 if the science is there I'm sure not seeing it.
And once again for those that refuse to read what I keep saying over and over, PREDATORS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, but no more a part as human encroachment.
Idaho did a study not that long ago in the Lochsa and Selway river areas on elk calf mortality. The numbers were 48-52% of calves were killed by black bears
Post by: bearpaw on March 23, 2022, 10:42:36 PM
Karl, when I said I didn't think housing developments were the biggest problem, that there aren't enough deer to use the available habitat I was really thinking of NE Washington and I should have said that. In this area there is a lot of winter range that used to be full of mule deer, that winter range is still there, there are no housing developments, it's federal land that can't be developed. But our herds have so many predators they keep getting smaller. A prime example is the east slope of the Kettle Crest coming off Sherman Pass. There is a ton of empty winter range, much of it has locked gates, no access, no homes, you can't even blame the tribe, there's no access for them to get off the highway into most of that winter range. You really can't even blame hunters for the continued decline either, there has been no mule doe hunting for years here and bucks have to be bigger than 3 point, none of them live that long here. Literally very few mule deer are even legal to shoot here, yet they continue to decline.
I do understand the situation is different in your area and probably what you are professing is likely very accurate. :hello:
Post by: Special T on March 24, 2022, 12:06:12 AM
Come on T. I said right in that post that predators are a factor. I never once stated its a habit vs predator issue. And I'll correct you on the "think" portion of your statement that habit loss is an issue. Its a FACT that habitat loss is a giant elephant in the room. When you develop USABLE habitat on your winter ranges into housing and strip malls you degrade the carrying capacity of land. That equals less deer. Plain and simple. How many historic migration routes throughout the west have had roads and housing developments punched right through them? The answer is an immense amount. We (not WA) are just now catching up to a lot of it with land purchases, animal bridges, etc to help correct some but for lots of herds its too late and those routes are lost forever. Predators are the easy button when looking at things to blame. God forbid as a human race we look in the mirror when playing the blame game...
You made a couple assertions that I either missed or you assumed. I am not an English major, and if memory serves correct neither are you. I am engaging you in honest debate because I do not have all the answers. I thought I gave us each enough outs so that we could clarify our positions. You have miss understood me so I must be more blunt and direct. You claim areas exist where depredation are not a problem but encroachment is. Where specifically are you speaking. I ask this so that the conversation is specific and we do not resort to name calling without detailed reasoning.
You claim we are building in migration routes. This is a claim that has anecdotal evidence. I have seen the Wyoming study. Advocating for one or more in WA is a good idea. It appears to me that is the positive goal you should be working for. Perhaps your friends in MDF and elsewhere would agree. I agree that it is a worthy endeavor but others because we feel predators is a problem. Impunity others assertions only degrades fellow Sportsmen of your beliefs. Collar Datta in WY is amazing and you would do much better for your and Sportsmen cause to raise money for collar studies.
We both know that really hard Datta is necessary to convince this comission of anything..
Common sense tells me you are not wrong, but it also tells me that predators a big problem. The extent of each are debatable but a collar survey would clarify a lot.
I think k theybwould be great for deer and elk fyi.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 24, 2022, 03:57:08 AM
Post by: hunter399 on March 24, 2022, 05:24:47 AM
I think everyone relates to the problems in the areas they hunt. Karl relates to human encroachment because that is happening in his area. I relate to predators because that's a huge issue in my area, and Humptulips suggested part of the problem is caused by poor hunting in western WA so more hunters travel east. I think we are all correct, some factors are probably bigger factors or lesser factors depending on which part of the state you have experience, but these are all problems our deer face. :twocents:
Karl, when I said I didn't think housing developments were the biggest problem, that there aren't enough deer to use the available habitat I was really thinking of NE Washington and I should have said that. In this area there is a lot of winter range that used to be full of mule deer, that winter range is still there, there are no housing developments, it's federal land that can't be developed. But our herds have so many predators they keep getting smaller. A prime example is the east slope of the Kettle Crest coming off Sherman Pass. There is a ton of empty winter range, much of it has locked gates, no access, no homes, you can't even blame the tribe, there's no access for them to get off the highway into most of that winter range. You really can't even blame hunters for the continued decline either, there has been no mule doe hunting for years here and bucks have to be bigger than 3 point, none of them live that long here. Literally very few mule deer are even legal to shoot here, yet they continue to decline.
I do understand the situation is different in your area and probably what you are professing is likely very accurate. :hello:
The north half ,mule deer does,and bucks smaller than 3pts do get taken. I know one tribal member that took a spike and a doe out the same mule deer herd. Like same day.
I do agree with most you said, and in stevens county,and all of NE Washington that is not the north half,mule deer are still declined .So I can't really blame the tribe in those areas.
But the north half they have a very long season of like 4 deer and no state law apply . And yes a lot of the winter range is locked up. Natives have snowmobile and SXS and fourwheler and all that good stuff.
If you look at NE Washington as a whole with mule deer to not include the north half ,mule deer face a host of problems from predators are the biggest ,to poaching 3pt min,out of season hunting,SXS,ATV,EBIKES, in closed road areas.
Then habitat ,drought,fire,clear cuts,spraying brush,.
Look at a lot of NE units some will have 50 or less harvest rate for mule deer .
NE Washington should be permit only for mule deer a long time ago ,just looking at harvest rates alone in any GMU.
Post by: elkboy on March 24, 2022, 08:11:44 AM
In 1960 the population of WA state was 2.8 million people. In 2022 the population of WA state is 7.76 million people. Let that sink in a bit. Those people don't all live on house boats. To say that habitat loss and degradation isn't an issue with a population increase of almost 5 MILLION humans is crazy to me. And let's remember habitat and USABLE habitat are two very different things. All the rolling cheat grass hills in the world aren't gonna support very many MD. You can kill every single predator from that landscape and you still won't regain any meaningful numbers.
Does the current state of forest management make me sick? Yes. Does losing spring bear, hounds, bait, and the moratorium on killing wolves make me sick? YES! But to be so short sighted and stubborn as to put sole blame on the backs of predators is disappointing as you all have shown you have the intellect to look deeper than that.
We aren't getting hounds and bait back. Spring bear is fun but its a small management tool. We can more than make up for 146 bears if we all just put more effort into actually hunting them. And let's be honest, the likelihood of ever hunting a wolf in WA or OR in any of our lifetimes is closer to zero than it is 100%. Habitat enhancement is something we can still control and almost everyone can get behind. Predator killing divides the room before there is even a conversation started.
Yes, all this. 100%
Forest stands, whether west side or east side, tend to be overstocked, reducing understory forage production. This doesn't help deer and elk.
Slamming as many vacation homes as possible into places like the Methow doesn't help deer and elk.
High-fencing deer and elk from their historic winter range, as has been done in the east Cascades foothills, doesn't help deer and elk. (Any elk get onto ag lands anyway? Hammer 'em with dep tags!)
Failure to address the degradation of habitats by invasive plants doesn't help deer and elk.
Society's continued intolerance of seasonal amounts of smoke from prescribed fires to stimulate forage production doesn't help deer and elk.
And I do agree, predators can be part of the problem. But we have to look at how the entire system, human and natural, is constituted at present. And it's not in the favor of deer and elk.
Post by: hunter399 on March 24, 2022, 08:31:09 AM
I agree guys ,many factors out there. And only so many we can control.In 1960 the population of WA state was 2.8 million people. In 2022 the population of WA state is 7.76 million people. Let that sink in a bit. Those people don't all live on house boats. To say that habitat loss and degradation isn't an issue with a population increase of almost 5 MILLION humans is crazy to me. And let's remember habitat and USABLE habitat are two very different things. All the rolling cheat grass hills in the world aren't gonna support very many MD. You can kill every single predator from that landscape and you still won't regain any meaningful numbers.
Does the current state of forest management make me sick? Yes. Does losing spring bear, hounds, bait, and the moratorium on killing wolves make me sick? YES! But to be so short sighted and stubborn as to put sole blame on the backs of predators is disappointing as you all have shown you have the intellect to look deeper than that.
We aren't getting hounds and bait back. Spring bear is fun but its a small management tool. We can more than make up for 146 bears if we all just put more effort into actually hunting them. And let's be honest, the likelihood of ever hunting a wolf in WA or OR in any of our lifetimes is closer to zero than it is 100%. Habitat enhancement is something we can still control and almost everyone can get behind. Predator killing divides the room before there is even a conversation started.
Yes, all this. 100%
Forest stands, whether west side or east side, tend to be overstocked, reducing understory forage production. This doesn't help deer and elk.
Slamming as many vacation homes as possible into places like the Methow doesn't help deer and elk.
High-fencing deer and elk from their historic winter range, as has been done in the east Cascades foothills, doesn't help deer and elk. (Any elk get onto ag lands anyway? Hammer 'em with dep tags!)
Failure to address the degradation of habitats by invasive plants doesn't help deer and elk.
Society's continued intolerance of seasonal amounts of smoke from prescribed fires to stimulate forage production doesn't help deer and elk.
And I do agree, predators can be part of the problem. But we have to look at how the entire system, human and natural, is constituted at present. And it's not in the favor of deer and elk.
And that's where we should start. It's pretty obvious the APR for mule deer has worked over the years. But we are still on the down hill trend . May have to think about some permit areas in the future ,where mule deer are hurting the most.
Post by: KFhunter on March 24, 2022, 09:01:17 AM
Working with landowners to improve habitat with no strings attached
I stopped by the pheasants forever booth and asked about habitat on my property and they said they don't do that, then I asked about chicks, don't do that either, but could put me in touch with a bio. (Which means out of pocket improvements)
I left their booth wondering wth do they do then? if not habitat work?
As for large land being broken up into small land, perhaps look at zoning laws, used to be I could only break up to 20 ac chunks, now its like 5 ac chunks I think, in winter ranges maybe some pressure could be applied to keep larger lots rather than many small lots. That's very local at county commission I believe.
I know a lot of hunters hate seeing cattle on their bait sites, but they really can improve habitat if done right. Much of our habitat is way way underutilized so the understory grows way thick, then fires way too hot that sterilization happens. We need to encourage responsible grazing. It's impossible to get good labor so hunting groups need to get active in these contracts as far as improvements go. Water tanks help elk, deer and all species besides just cattle.
We need to open roads, hunting isn't just for the guys that pack in miles, its for all ages, classes and types of people. We need to quit bottling them up on a fraction of the roads they used to have access on. This also helps fire suppression, but aslo prescriptive burns as well as it reduces risk factors and gets approved easier if there's access.
And yes, we need a great deal of predator reduction in all areas of the state. It's not a coincidence that in the 90's hunting was in its heyday and then started a methodical decline with banning much of our trapping.
All sectors need looked at, all angles. This starts at the ballot box.
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 09:39:07 AM
Post by: buckfvr on March 24, 2022, 10:22:42 AM
For me, most notably in 121 and 101, many of the spots that were my go-to spots hold very few animals (especially within reasonable proximity of known wolf pack) now to the point of no longer spending much if any time there. Finding a landing to spend the day glassing, now means a constant parade of every type of vehicle in 10-minute increments disrupting the peace. Dont say go back in farther to get away from the road runners because you cant in many places and these are places where you "USED" to be able to find deer reliably.
Its all changed/changing for the foreseeable.
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 10:36:20 AM
I dont believe for one second that there is more deer here anywhere than there was 20 years+- ago. I do think animals in certain areas have been redistributed making it look as though there are more animals when in actuality there is not. Predators to include man, have greatly altered herd dynamics.kind of agree, but the point is that where they have redistributed to they are doing very well. Agreed, it is all changing, animals are moving out of those high traffic, heavily hunted areas and moving into those areas with less aggressive traffic and fewer orange outfits wandering around.Fawn production around my area was excellent last year, most does with fawns and lots of twins. With hunting areas being compacted more every year the traffic in open areas has forced animals to make the move, and they aren't migrating out like they used to.
For me, most notably in 121 and 101, many of the spots that were my go-to spots hold very few animals (especially within reasonable proximity of known wolf pack) now to the point of no longer spending much if any time there. Finding a landing to spend the day glassing, now means a constant parade of every type of vehicle in 10-minute increments disrupting the peace. Dont say go back in farther to get away from the road runners because you cant in many places and these are places where you "USED" to be able to find deer reliably.
Its all changed/changing for the foreseeable.
Post by: buckfvr on March 24, 2022, 10:47:13 AM
Post by: hunter399 on March 24, 2022, 10:52:42 AM
Agree. From my perspective, hwy 25 corridor and lower end of Addy/Cedonia see more resident deer rather than like you say, migrators, that leave and move back to higher ground with the green up. I still see areas of mules that recede higher up into the hills with the snow line, but its small local herds that seem to disappear in the timber with any human intrusion.I agree that's the truth.
Had a few areas you could glass up 50 in a day,no problem.
Same spot now ,your lucky 5 a day to glass up .
Post by: KFhunter on March 24, 2022, 10:59:47 AM
Also in that time-frame footholds for yotes ended, as well as hounds for cats and bears, it took ahwile for their pops to explode and show an effect on deer.
Now we see good pops of deer on mostly private property, where tbere is high quality feed, cover and suitable conditions they can carry good numbers as predators don't like otber predators around, they don't stack up..kinda
Higher elevation backwoods deer aren't thriving, aren't keeping fawns and so natural selection is favoring lower elevation deer that live generations on mostly private lands.
This is disrupting to migratory trends where higher elevation deer come low to winter out, and affecting species at those elevations that use deer and deer carcasses.
What we're seeing now is higher elevations devoid of deer during prime seasons when they should be there, as none were born with those migration routes ingrained in them from generations prior. A deer isn't going to strike out on it's own and think "hmm, I think I'll summer way up there in tbat saddle this year!" No, it would have taken a doe to drag its fawn up there, and in turn drag its fawn up there so on so forth. Old lead does dragging family units up year after year.
Those chains of migratory knowledge are being broken.
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 11:17:08 AM
Post by: Jingles on March 24, 2022, 12:37:37 PM
The redistribution thing is easily explained when you consider that just about every patch of dirt had hay or crops on it 15-20 years ago, deer didn't have far to go to find high quality feed.
Also in that time-frame footholds for yotes ended, as well as hounds for cats and bears, it took ahwile for their pops to explode and show an effect on deer.
Now we see good pops of deer on mostly private property, where tbere is high quality feed, cover and suitable conditions they can carry good numbers as predators don't like otber predators around, they don't stack up..kinda
Higher elevation backwoods deer aren't thriving, aren't keeping fawns and so natural selection is favoring lower elevation deer that live generations on mostly private lands.
This is disrupting to migratory trends where higher elevation deer come low to winter out, and affecting species at those elevations that use deer and deer carcasses.
What we're seeing now is higher elevations devoid of deer during prime seasons when they should be there, as none were born with those migration routes ingrained in them from generations prior. A deer isn't going to strike out on it's own and think "hmm, I think I'll summer way up there in tbat saddle this year!" No, it would have taken a doe to drag its fawn up there, and in turn drag its fawn up there so on so forth. Old lead does dragging family units up year after year.
Those chains of migratory knowledge are being broken.
WDFW and even a large number of hunters will not admit that the Winter kill of 95/96 had a severe impact on the deer not migrating back to the high country mainly because the shere number of lead does that died off. When you could find 20, to 40 deer within a 100 yards of each other it does not take a Masters in Rocket science to realize the impact that is going to have on migration patterns, and when the generation that survived didn't migrate but stuck around in the low Lands and in towns the following generations did the same, kinda like 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipients in the human race
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 01:07:07 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 24, 2022, 04:17:43 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 05:04:56 PM
You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Post by: KFhunter on March 24, 2022, 05:38:25 PM
You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 06:09:23 PM
OK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
Post by: buckfvr on March 24, 2022, 06:26:09 PM
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 07:26:24 PM
The antagonists to the hunting community have been busy for years driving the wedge of division amongst us and quite successfully I'll add. Mentioning that, they are much farther along in their campaign to "conquer" us than I believe many of us realize.exactly right. Would suggest setting up as a PAC. Gives you the advantage of endorsing and contributing to candidates. Humane Society and PETA can't do that as they are 501 c non profits. When it comes to politics money speaks far louder than talk from non contributing non profits. Candidates grovel at the feet of groups far smaller than we could put together, especially if that group has money to contribute. Pretty sure there are members on here much more k knowledgeable on this than an old dude like me
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 24, 2022, 07:31:33 PM
OK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 07:53:23 PM
I suspect that based on the anger and frustration many of us feel, something like this put together might snowball faster than we think. I'm sure many on here would love to have a viable way of fighting back.OK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Post by: harveymarv on March 24, 2022, 08:26:16 PM
OK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Hunter's Heritage Council (HHC) is an existing pro-hunting PAC in WA, and they can take donations:
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html
They are the only pro-hunting PAC in WA I am aware of.
Post by: Moose Master on March 24, 2022, 08:57:41 PM
Post by: Humptulips on March 24, 2022, 09:11:41 PM
I reached out to a retired lobbyists to pick his brain as far of what sort of support it takes to get good messaging and bills passed. Also what sort of money it takes to BE a PAC that's has some sway. Don't know if he is traveling or what but will circle back if I hear from him.Why recreate what we already have. HHC just needs some help IMO, talented people and money.
Post by: baldopepper on March 24, 2022, 09:14:51 PM
with all do respect, they don't seem to be winning many battles. Maybe we're just not seeing them, but name recognition isn't very strong in the general hunting community either. I'll do a little more research and certainly won't discount their efforts until I have. I just think it's time to try a new, perhaps more aggressive tact than what I've been seeingOK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Hunter's Heritage Council (HHC) is an existing pro-hunting PAC in WA, and they can take donations:
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html
They are the only pro-hunting PAC in WA I am aware of.
Post by: Moose Master on March 25, 2022, 07:51:59 AM
I reached out to a retired lobbyists to pick his brain as far of what sort of support it takes to get good messaging and bills passed. Also what sort of money it takes to BE a PAC that's has some sway. Don't know if he is traveling or what but will circle back if I hear from him.Why recreate what we already have. HHC just needs some help IMO, talented people and money.
If you read my comment it's more about what it takes not disparaging HHC and or it's operation. A PAC has limitations and bridgein those obstacles is key to be successful. Exploring options and trying to learn how it works.
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2022, 08:02:19 AM
I reached out to a retired lobbyists to pick his brain as far of what sort of support it takes to get good messaging and bills passed. Also what sort of money it takes to BE a PAC that's has some sway. Don't know if he is traveling or what but will circle back if I hear from him.Why recreate what we already have. HHC just needs some help IMO, talented people and money.
If you read my comment it's more about what it takes not disparaging HHC and or it's operation. A PAC has limitations and bridgein those obstacles is key to be successful. Exploring options and trying to learn how it works.
So you want a PAC that will fund candidates that are the exact opposite of everyone you tend to vote for?
And you'd send money to it?
Post by: Moose Master on March 25, 2022, 08:27:14 AM
I reached out to a retired lobbyists to pick his brain as far of what sort of support it takes to get good messaging and bills passed. Also what sort of money it takes to BE a PAC that's has some sway. Don't know if he is traveling or what but will circle back if I hear from him.Why recreate what we already have. HHC just needs some help IMO, talented people and money.
If you read my comment it's more about what it takes not disparaging HHC and or it's operation. A PAC has limitations and bridgein those obstacles is key to be successful. Exploring options and trying to learn how it works.
So you want a PAC that will fund candidates that are the exact opposite of everyone you tend to vote for?
And you'd send money to it?
Where did I say that? The interest was relative to wildlife, hunting and fishing. Reality of the world in hunting is that WE HUNTERS do need help in protecting our passion. It's going to take people from all sides to engage and help with our common goals. One side cannot get it done.......... :twocents:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on March 25, 2022, 08:35:47 AM
I reached out to a retired lobbyists to pick his brain as far of what sort of support it takes to get good messaging and bills passed. Also what sort of money it takes to BE a PAC that's has some sway. Don't know if he is traveling or what but will circle back if I hear from him.Why recreate what we already have. HHC just needs some help IMO, talented people and money.
If you read my comment it's more about what it takes not disparaging HHC and or it's operation. A PAC has limitations and bridgein those obstacles is key to be successful. Exploring options and trying to learn how it works.
So you want a PAC that will fund candidates that are the exact opposite of everyone you tend to vote for?
And you'd send money to it?
Where did I say that? The interest was relative to wildlife, hunting and fishing. Reality of the world in hunting is that WE HUNTERS do need help in protecting our passion. It's going to take people from all sides to engage and help with our common goals. One side cannot get it done.......... :twocents:
The foxes have been in the hen house long enough, we need to get rid of the foxes.😉
Post by: Tbar on March 25, 2022, 08:45:16 AM
The antagonists to the hunting community have been busy for years driving the wedge of division amongst us and quite successfully I'll add. Mentioning that, they are much farther along in their campaign to "conquer" us than I believe many of us realize.I would disagree that the antagonist have been at it longer. HHC has been in the fight and winning most fights for quite a while. I do believe they could do a far better job telling their story through modern channels like social media. There is no discounting the work they've done in the past. Washington would be far worse off in without HHC when it comes to hunting. I do agree some fresh blood may help as long as they can get beyond the echo chambers. The other obstacles are divided hunt vs fish folks. Some of the recs have partnered with preservationist groups to further their agenda. Time will tell the consequences of these actions but I don't feel good about the overall benefits to consumtive users as a whole.
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Post by: Ridgeratt on March 25, 2022, 08:46:29 AM
The foxes have been in the hen house long enough, we need to get rid of the foxes.😉
Correct :tup: One of the first things needed to be done is to purge the Biologist with ties to conservation groups from the agencies that are supposed to work/represent the sportsman.
I have maintained that what better way to promote the conservation agenda is from the inside.
Could this be like the current game commission. :dunno:
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 25, 2022, 08:51:25 AM
with all do respect, they don't seem to be winning many battles. Maybe we're just not seeing them, but name recognition isn't very strong in the general hunting community either. I'll do a little more research and certainly won't discount their efforts until I have. I just think it's time to try a new, perhaps more aggressive tact than what I've been seeingOK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Hunter's Heritage Council (HHC) is an existing pro-hunting PAC in WA, and they can take donations:
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html
They are the only pro-hunting PAC in WA I am aware of.
I would like to respond to this directly. Not winning many many battles? In our 25 years of existence we have killed every piece of anti-hunting legislation, a perfect track record. I will match that against any lobby group in Olympia. Especially this session where a slew of anti-hunting hunting legislation was introduced, the volume of anti-hunting bills surpassed the anti-gun legislation. We killed it all. Some really crazy bills. It is the RESPECT the Hunters Heritage Council earned with the legislature. When it comes to hunting legislation, legislators turn to us for answers.
As for an electioneering organization our endorsement is highly sought after. It is something both incumbents and challengers seek. We work closely with the caucuses, because they want OUR support. They consider US the voice of the hunting community. As for our PAC, and our endorsements, 86% of our endorsed candidates win. We look only at who represent the best interests of the hunting community, nothing else. That is the only factors we consider, no ideology is taken into account. Our endorsement has been sought after anywhere from statewide races to to local elections. Our PAC truly deserves to be supported.
Post by: Humptulips on March 25, 2022, 09:27:15 AM
:yeah: More resource=more success.with all do respect, they don't seem to be winning many battles. Maybe we're just not seeing them, but name recognition isn't very strong in the general hunting community either. I'll do a little more research and certainly won't discount their efforts until I have. I just think it's time to try a new, perhaps more aggressive tact than what I've been seeingOK we can start wherever you'd like, point is we need to start some sort of dialog. IF we could get just 10% of the licensed hunters to band together we'd have a voting block of 17,000 votes. Get them to pop in just $20.00 each and you have a $340,000 war chest to pass around. Plug in 20% of the licensed hunters and you have a fairly formidable voting block and a tempting war chest. We may only have 2-3% of the population, but banded together we could put together a PAC that would get the attention of lots of candidates. We just need to quit the squabbling, whining and crying and start putting something together. If I were 20 years younger I'd sure as hack pursue it, but now certainly ld support and encourage others I know to support. Heck, I'll be right there supporting you if you want to start gluing it together.You laid out very well why I didn't vote Inslee or any dems save one in a local raceSo KF, guess I'm looking at like this. If your house caught fire, would you ask the firemen how they voted before you'd let them put it out? As hunters, our house is starting to burn. Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later. Personally I'm more than happy to address a dialog that involves cross party voting or really any other ideas that might help. I just feel, so to speak, that we're standing in the driveway calling each other names while the fire rages on.
Your logic train has no tracks, but I'll go with it.. I vote for "firefighters"
You vote for arsonists when it comes to wildlife, individual rights and quality of life.
Hell, the dems even use BLM and Antifa to burn crap down so maybe there is something to this logic train after all.
"Let's work to put it out and we can argue who's to blame and how it started later"
Who's to blame, and how it started is the first step to fixing it! Votes gotta change enough that we can get "firefighters" in and that's all there is to it.
I’m sure alot of us would donate more than $20 if a pac got started.
@Special T
Hunter's Heritage Council (HHC) is an existing pro-hunting PAC in WA, and they can take donations:
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html
They are the only pro-hunting PAC in WA I am aware of.
I would like to respond to this directly. Not winning many many battles? In our 25 years of existence we have killed every piece of anti-hunting legislation, a perfect track record. I will match that against any lobby group in Olympia. Especially this session where a slew of anti-hunting hunting legislation was introduced, the volume of anti-hunting bills surpassed the anti-gun legislation. We killed it all. Some really crazy bills. It is the RESPECT the Hunters Heritage Council earned with the legislature. When it comes to hunting legislation, legislators turn to us for answers.
As for an electioneering organization our endorsement is highly sought after. It is something both incumbents and challengers seek. We work closely with the caucuses, because they want OUR support. They consider US the voice of the hunting community. As for our PAC, and our endorsements, 86% of our endorsed candidates win. We look only at who represent the best interests of the hunting community, nothing else. That is the only factors we consider, no ideology is taken into account. Our endorsement has been sought after anywhere from statewide races to to local elections. Our PAC truly deserves to be supported.
Post by: Moose Master on March 25, 2022, 09:29:45 AM
Post by: Bob33 on March 25, 2022, 09:40:55 AM
Post by: buckfvr on March 25, 2022, 10:05:01 AM
The antagonists to the hunting community have been busy for years driving the wedge of division amongst us and quite successfully I'll add. Mentioning that, they are much farther along in their campaign to "conquer" us than I believe many of us realize.I would disagree that the antagonist have been at it longer. HHC has been in the fight and winning most fights for quite a while. I do believe they could do a far better job telling their story through modern channels like social media. There is no discounting the work they've done in the past. Washington would be far worse off in without HHC when it comes to hunting. I do agree some fresh blood may help as long as they can get beyond the echo chambers. The other obstacles are divided hunt vs fish folks. Some of the recs have partnered with preservationist groups to further their agenda. Time will tell the consequences of these actions but I don't feel good about the overall benefits to consumtive users as a whole.
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Not sure who youd be disagreeing with as I didnt say "have been at it longer". I think we are looking at two different approaches here as HHC effort is exemplary for sure but where/how does it trickle down to the fights at ground zero, ie. with the commissioners, biologists, and wdfw in general ? We do not seem to be able to hold the commissioners or any part of wdfw accountable to their very own mission statement. They follow through with their preconceived ideals and agendas using the general hunting public as merely tools to satisfy protocols.
We have been screaming for changes in northeast Washington for several years and continue to get the same bs lines of misinformation and out right dismissal (blow off) from top to bottom. Ground zero needs more attention from eager fighters.
Thank you HHC for the very important fight at the top.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 25, 2022, 12:43:57 PM
@Hunter4Life what is the best way to support HHC?
The best way to support us right now with the sessions being over is to support the Hunters Heritage Council PAC
Contributions can be sent to
HHC PAC
c/o Mark Pidgeon
PO Box 40182
Bellevue, WA 98015-4182
Please make contributions payable to HHC PAC
Public Disclosure Commission rules REQUIRE that we obtain the following information:
Your name
Your complete mailing address including city, state, and zip code
Your occupation, Your Employer, your Employer's City and State
Failure to obtain the above information will require us to turn contributions over to the state general fund under WAC provisions by the PDC. They are THAt strict. If you are retires that suffices.
Post by: Hunter4Life on March 25, 2022, 12:57:11 PM
The antagonists to the hunting community have been busy for years driving the wedge of division amongst us and quite successfully I'll add. Mentioning that, they are much farther along in their campaign to "conquer" us than I believe many of us realize.I would disagree that the antagonist have been at it longer. HHC has been in the fight and winning most fights for quite a while. I do believe they could do a far better job telling their story through modern channels like social media. There is no discounting the work they've done in the past. Washington would be far worse off in without HHC when it comes to hunting. I do agree some fresh blood may help as long as they can get beyond the echo chambers. The other obstacles are divided hunt vs fish folks. Some of the recs have partnered with preservationist groups to further their agenda. Time will tell the consequences of these actions but I don't feel good about the overall benefits to consumtive users as a whole.
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Not sure who youd be disagreeing with as I didnt say "have been at it longer". I think we are looking at two different approaches here as HHC effort is exemplary for sure but where/how does it trickle down to the fights at ground zero, ie. with the commissioners, biologists, and wdfw in general ? We do not seem to be able to hold the commissioners or any part of wdfw accountable to their very own mission statement. They follow through with their preconceived ideals and agendas using the general hunting public as merely tools to satisfy protocols.
We have been screaming for changes in northeast Washington for several years and continue to get the same bs lines of misinformation and out right dismissal (blow off) from top to bottom. Ground zero needs more attention from eager fighters.
Thank you HHC for the very important fight at the top.
You are right in what you say. HHC is a political organization, we are the only hunting-rights organization with a full-time lobbyist in Olympia, we fight in the legislative halls. There Commission is a whole different baileywick. Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation is our sister organization and it is the grassroots, outreach, and advocacy organization. Believe it or not, the hunters slaughtered the animal-rights people in getting messages to the Commission. That was in story after story in Northwest Sportsman. Even ultra anti-hunting Commission Barbara Baker admitted that meeting after meeting. Normally we get our butts kicked. WWC used a new tool inconject with Howl for Wildlife to get thousands of messages to the Commission. We had more people testify too. The hunting community is just plained pissed off, but the numbers now just aren't there. The Governor illegally stacked the Commission against us in violation of RCW 77.04.040. One thing Tbar is right about, HHC is horrible about is getting its message out on what has accomplished, on what it is, and what it does. He is spot on.
Post by: 87Ford on March 25, 2022, 01:49:35 PM
The Governor illegally stacked the Commission against us in violation of RCW 77.04.040.This right here makes me angry..
Thank you Hunter4Life for the information regarding HHC
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2022, 02:21:20 PM
Imo opinion the best example is Brian Blake. I am not a Democrat yet supported his campaign. Many on here have botched and moaned about pick a thing. I did not agree with him on a variety of issues but he was an NRA a+ rated politician and supported Sportsmen well. Fact every other option we have now is sub par. HHC supported him in many ways. We are properly F e D now with out him. We have less political powers and yet we infighting amongst ourselves over if he would be a good comission member. Guess what? If we are too excited forward Sportsmen are going to have to swallow a pill bigger than Blake.
Join me in giving $ to HHC even if it's only $20. It will require more work than the 20 you give, but we have to organize for the fight. I hope to hear more from our friends at HHC and WWC because our political enemies are organized for the kill shot.
I have had many discussion with Archers at my home range about habitat, what orgs to join and the like. IMO the fight on or door step is political. Predator control and single species management are the 2 big factors. Add to the the F ery that commission appointments have taken place and we are the under dog.
In terms of HHC they have been the tree falling in the woods with no one around as far as the public is concerned. I have asked my state reps and senator if they know who HHC is and they do.
I canntell you from my time at my local archery club self promotion is the last thing on most people list of things that must be done. At my club we don't just give access to the clubhouse, or the Facebook page to the first person that shows up. You have to earn trust and give back. TIME is the most valuable commodity, and the next best substitute is cash. Join me in giving something to HHC.
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/index.html
Post by: Moose Master on March 25, 2022, 02:31:26 PM
Thanks for the information 👍
Post by: baldopepper on March 25, 2022, 02:56:23 PM
Why look here, some of us can set things aside and work for a common good. Special T, Hunter4life, Tbar, and all the rest I will be sending a check for 40.00 dollars to HHC.Well. How do we pump them up? Had a license in this state since 1980 and have never been approached for membership or donation to them.. Obviusly they haven't gotten the word out to enough of us. Would like a little more info , like how many members, how much and to whom have they contributed to. Etc. Do they put out a newsletter or mailings and if so how do you get on the list? Sounds like a good organization that has done a lousy recruitment effort. Perhaps that's an area know-how members on here can help with. Must be a way of getting there name and goals out to more licensed hunters and sportsmen.
Thanks for the information 👍
Post by: Mtnwalker on March 25, 2022, 05:31:36 PM
Why look here, some of us can set things aside and work for a common good. Special T, Hunter4life, Tbar, and all the rest I will be sending a check for 40.00 dollars to HHC.Well. How do we pump them up? Had a license in this state since 1980 and have never been approached for membership or donation to them.. Obviusly they haven't gotten the word out to enough of us. Would like a little more info , like how many members, how much and to whom have they contributed to. Etc. Do they put out a newsletter or mailings and if so how do you get on the list? Sounds like a good organization that has done a lousy recruitment effort. Perhaps that's an area know-how members on here can help with. Must be a way of getting there name and goals out to more licensed hunters and sportsmen.
Thanks for the information 👍
This question has come up a few times since the spring bear debacle began as many of us were searching for worthwhile organizations to send our hard earned money to. It’s time for HHC, WWC and others to step out of the shadows and make their name known. I’ve also never heard of them until recently and I was actively searching the internet for Washington based pro-hunting orgs. They need to take a page out of BHA’s book and market themselves a little bit, stop assuming everybody already knows about them. I’d bet the money would be pouring in at this point if people knew who they were and what they were about :twocents:
Post by: WWC on March 25, 2022, 06:09:26 PM
Fact is a couple of members have been more vocal in promoting both WWC and HHC. The past is just that. We are volunteers so we take the hours given to us that are proven to promote Sportsmen.
What can you do? If you belong to a shooting club or Sportsmen organization lobby them to join WWC. We help each other become better advocates. If your not a member join a shooting or Sportsmen group and tell them you are willing to represent your organization as a part of WWC. We have had several new organizations join, and some past ones rejoin as a result of us being more engaged online.
We had several folks at the Big Horn Show in Spokane sign up because they saw us post here or on Facebook. We are pleased to add these folks to the list of people that want direct representation and advocacy for sportmen. One of the problems this organization and HHC has had is playing its cards very close to the vest. We recognize that when a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to witness it, it happens in a vacuum.
WWC and HHC were founded after the loss of hound hunting and Bait. Both have represented sportmen in the shadows quite effectively for some time. It is not a coincidence that Washington Wildlife First (WWF) has formed to combat our effectiveness. WWF.. advertising patent infringement anyone?
WWC and HHC are the un sexy work horses that have been doing the heavy lifting. Think of us as the old Truck or Tractor that has been toiling in the background for years. We are now in the shop for a new coat of paint a wax and a tour on the show room for our second go around. We want friends inall kind of places. If you want to join as an individual to get our legislative and note updates, or want to steer your organizational hinting rep to our team visit us here.
https://w4wc.org/membership.html
If you wish to contribute to the HHC political PAC then sign a check and fill out the form here.
http://huntersheritagecouncil.org/hhc-pac.html
Several members on here are involved with HHC or WWC to a varying degree. The Washington State Trappers association, SCI, Washington Waterfowl Asociation, Tacoma Sportsmen and others are active members.
Post by: baldopepper on March 25, 2022, 07:03:20 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2022, 07:22:04 PM
Post by: Special T on March 25, 2022, 07:50:48 PM
Why look here, some of us can set things aside and work for a common good. Special T, Hunter4life, Tbar, and all the rest I will be sending a check for 40.00 dollars to HHC.Well. How do we pump them up? Had a license in this state since 1980 and have never been approached for membership or donation to them.. Obviusly they haven't gotten the word out to enough of us. Would like a little more info , like how many members, how much and to whom have they contributed to. Etc. Do they put out a newsletter or mailings and if so how do you get on the list? Sounds like a good organization that has done a lousy recruitment effort. Perhaps that's an area know-how members on here can help with. Must be a way of getting there name and goals out to more licensed hunters and sportsmen.
Thanks for the information 👍
You ask some good questions. How do you you pump them up? If your a FB person like their page. If you belong to a sportmens organization you tell them to investigate and or join.(I Have).
A question for some of you. What is your hesitation? I hesitated because I'm like most of you, a skeptic. It wasn't until I had a beer with Bushcraft, and I had talked with my friends in Washington Waterfowl Association that I understood who they were and what they did.
Who's endorsement do you need? Pardon me for calling him out but surely @Bearpaw /Dale knows all the parties involved? Is he not repetutuable enough? Perhaps your a Democrat that is a Sportsmen that think all of us Republicans are shills and cannot be trusted? Brian Blake visits this site. He is no shill, was up for a comissioner seat, headed the House Natural Reasources committee. Think I'm Blowing smoke? He is on Facebook. Send him a private message and ask him what he thinks about HHC/WWC. He cares deeply about the issues and his record is or can be known. Do you need a representative to speak publicly on a Sportsmen podcast? Fish hunt NW? THE soulful Hunter? *censored*? The Huntsmen? GRITTY? Meat eater?
If none of these options are sufficient what is? No hate, but I would like to know and I'm sure the folks that try and represent us would like to know as well.
Post by: KFhunter on March 25, 2022, 10:30:35 PM
Kfhunter and others. Politics is a dirty business and most Sportsmen have a very precise requirement for giving time and money. Why? Because we are individualists, our political enemies are collectivist and give more freely of time and money with less strings attached. Fact is Sportsmen are not unlike Republicans and require a purity test.
Imo opinion the best example is Brian Blake. I am not a Democrat yet supported his campaign. Many on here have botched and moaned about pick a thing. I did not agree with him on a variety of issues but he was an NRA a+ rated politician and supported Sportsmen well. Fact every other option we have now is sub par. HHC supported him in many ways. We are properly F e D now with out him. We have less political powers and yet we infighting amongst ourselves over if he would be a good comission member. Guess what? If we are too excited forward Sportsmen are going to have to swallow a pill bigger than Blake.
Join me in giving $ to HHC even if it's only $20. It will require more work than the 20 you give, but we have to organize for the fight. I hope to hear more from our friends at HHC and WWC because our political enemies are organized for the kill shot.
I have had many discussion with Archers at my home range about habitat, what orgs to join and the like. IMO the fight on or door step is political. Predator control and single species management are the 2 big factors. Add to the the F ery that commission appointments have taken place and we are the under dog.
In terms of HHC they have been the tree falling in the woods with no one around as far as the public is concerned. I have asked my state reps and senator if they know who HHC is and they do.
I canntell you from my time at my local archery club self promotion is the last thing on most people list of things that must be done. At my club we don't just give access to the clubhouse, or the Facebook page to the first person that shows up. You have to earn trust and give back. TIME is the most valuable commodity, and the next best substitute is cash. Join me in giving something to HHC.
http://hunte
rsheritagecouncil.org/index.html
I did support Blake, said him having a D behind his name might be advantageous
Post by: dreadi on March 26, 2022, 12:59:05 AM
BLACK HAMMER ARMS
Type 07 Class 2 NFA Dealer
http://www.blackhammerarms.com
https://www.Silencershop.com/blackhammerarms
http://www.facebook.com/blackhammerarms
https://www.instagram.com/blackhammerarms
GLOCK Certified Armourer
Post by: hunter399 on March 26, 2022, 03:28:53 AM
There are places in this state that still live free.Kfhunter and others. Politics is a dirty business and most Sportsmen have a very precise requirement for giving time and money. Why? Because we are individualists, our political enemies are collectivist and give more freely of time and money with less strings attached. Fact is Sportsmen are not unlike Republicans and require a purity test.
Imo opinion the best example is Brian Blake. I am not a Democrat yet supported his campaign. Many on here have botched and moaned about pick a thing. I did not agree with him on a variety of issues but he was an NRA a+ rated politician and supported Sportsmen well. Fact every other option we have now is sub par. HHC supported him in many ways. We are properly F e D now with out him. We have less political powers and yet we infighting amongst ourselves over if he would be a good comission member. Guess what? If we are too excited forward Sportsmen are going to have to swallow a pill bigger than Blake.
Join me in giving $ to HHC even if it's only $20. It will require more work than the 20 you give, but we have to organize for the fight. I hope to hear more from our friends at HHC and WWC because our political enemies are organized for the kill shot.
I have had many discussion with Archers at my home range about habitat, what orgs to join and the like. IMO the fight on or door step is political. Predator control and single species management are the 2 big factors. Add to the the F ery that commission appointments have taken place and we are the under dog.
In terms of HHC they have been the tree falling in the woods with no one around as far as the public is concerned. I have asked my state reps and senator if they know who HHC is and they do.
I canntell you from my time at my local archery club self promotion is the last thing on most people list of things that must be done. At my club we don't just give access to the clubhouse, or the Facebook page to the first person that shows up. You have to earn trust and give back. TIME is the most valuable commodity, and the next best substitute is cash. Join me in giving something to HHC.
http://hunte
rsheritagecouncil.org/index.html
I did support Blake, said him having a D behind his name might be advantageous
I'm not giving any money,bidden already took it at the pump,inslee took it with his long term health care,
WDFW took it to pay for my licence and permits,
SORRY IM OUT OF MONEY,I wouldn't give it to democrats ,they already have there fair share of my money.
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Ohh ya don't forget about the discover pass too.
I get it ,that you guys pay off politicians, I say democrats can reap the rewards of how they vote.
I can wait it out ,they'll see the grass on the other pasture.
Post by: Jingles on March 26, 2022, 05:56:35 AM
Yes it might take some serious investigating but and maybe sacrificing time and money but maybe identify what groups applied pressure, made contributions financial or otherwise to the decision makers would expose the corruption.
Post by: Moose Master on March 26, 2022, 07:45:43 AM
Blame game is a easy pathway I've moved pass that. :bash:
Post by: blackdog on March 26, 2022, 08:14:31 AM
Post by: Special T on March 26, 2022, 01:15:41 PM
Stop hunting in this state. Some already have, most sportmen will ignore a boycott, and the Antis want us to quit hunting.
Petition the WDFW and or the Commission. We absolutely flooded the comissionon bears thanks to a bunch of folks but also our own Doug Boze, local expert. Appearing on alanine of podcasts rally troops and promoting H4W. The comission ignored science and the huge turnout of sportmen
Petition the Senate Natural resources committee on comissioner appointments. 2 bills existed on trying to resolve the lack of conformation. The Nat Resorce committee held a strange conformation hearing that was cut short and did not take a vote on the 3 new commissioners. We don't know why, it is strange, and no recourse exists save 1
Elect new officials that really matter. Now I don't know all of the folks on the Senate Natural resources committee but the Chair Kevin Van De Wege has been crowned the HSUS state senator of the year more than once. He controls the committee, hurts Sportsmen as do some others. While many on here think we need a new governor other things can be done. Contribute to the opposing of those that are not pro sportmen. Call and talk to your local senator and rep and let them know you expect a solution regarding the Lack of accountability in the comission appointment and conformation process.
These are a few of the main categories I see for remedin most situations. I belive we have exhausted all put the political... I belive that we need to either give our time and or $in support of HHC. I personally shot more money in Ammo than I gave to HHC, I have contacted my political reps. I will be going to their events to press this issue.
I have other thoughts on the issue but I though the organization of the options as I see them may explain my previous statements better. I feel the frustration most of you do. Take that energy and do something productive
Post by: baldopepper on March 26, 2022, 01:39:11 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 26, 2022, 01:49:58 PM
The antagonists to the hunting community have been busy for years driving the wedge of division amongst us and quite successfully I'll add. Mentioning that, they are much farther along in their campaign to "conquer" us than I believe many of us realize.I would disagree that the antagonist have been at it longer. HHC has been in the fight and winning most fights for quite a while. I do believe they could do a far better job telling their story through modern channels like social media. There is no discounting the work they've done in the past. Washington would be far worse off in without HHC when it comes to hunting. I do agree some fresh blood may help as long as they can get beyond the echo chambers. The other obstacles are divided hunt vs fish folks. Some of the recs have partnered with preservationist groups to further their agenda. Time will tell the consequences of these actions but I don't feel good about the overall benefits to consumtive users as a whole.
This fight will require new younger fresh blood to pick up the pieces and march forward before its altogether too late. :twocents:
Not sure who youd be disagreeing with as I didnt say "have been at it longer". I think we are looking at two different approaches here as HHC effort is exemplary for sure but where/how does it trickle down to the fights at ground zero, ie. with the commissioners, biologists, and wdfw in general ? We do not seem to be able to hold the commissioners or any part of wdfw accountable to their very own mission statement. They follow through with their preconceived ideals and agendas using the general hunting public as merely tools to satisfy protocols.
We have been screaming for changes in northeast Washington for several years and continue to get the same bs lines of misinformation and out right dismissal (blow off) from top to bottom. Ground zero needs more attention from eager fighters.
Thank you HHC for the very important fight at the top.
You are right in what you say. HHC is a political organization, we are the only hunting-rights organization with a full-time lobbyist in Olympia, we fight in the legislative halls. There Commission is a whole different baileywick. Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation is our sister organization and it is the grassroots, outreach, and advocacy organization. Believe it or not, the hunters slaughtered the animal-rights people in getting messages to the Commission. That was in story after story in Northwest Sportsman. Even ultra anti-hunting Commission Barbara Baker admitted that meeting after meeting. Normally we get our butts kicked. WWC used a new tool inconject with Howl for Wildlife to get thousands of messages to the Commission. We had more people testify too. The hunting community is just plained pissed off, but the numbers now just aren't there. The Governor illegally stacked the Commission against us in violation of RCW 77.04.040. One thing Tbar is right about, HHC is horrible about is getting its message out on what has accomplished, on what it is, and what it does. He is spot on.
If this particular statement is correct and an actual violation, is any group legally challenging this point?
If not, why?
Seems like a nice, slow one over the plate to swing for the fences at...
Post by: Special T on March 26, 2022, 02:36:37 PM
Looks like I'm not the only one that thinks our only option is to get political.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/washington-hunters-urged-to-get-involved-in-state-politics/
Post by: buckfvr on March 26, 2022, 02:48:29 PM
Guess you could throw in the udea of wildlife committe being an elected position. Either done legislatively or ,long shot, with a referendum. Have to be out it was worded so big vote blocks on the Westside wouldn't have control
Vote by region, allow for more reliable regional input.
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on March 26, 2022, 03:07:02 PM
Blackmail Sniper and others. Where do you think we can get the most bang for the buck?
Looks like I'm not the only one that thinks our only option is to get political.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/washington-hunters-urged-to-get-involved-in-state-politics/
Hunter4Life is who made the statement that Inslee's action was in a direct violation of the R.C.W.'s, therefore, giving Hunter4Life the benefit of that being an accurate and true statement regarding Inslee's action being a violation of state law.
Also, based on his post, it sounds like he is very well versed with HHC and their work.
So, with that in mind, I would think Hunter4Life and HHC associates would be the ones to take up the legal challenge since they are already in the arena and sound to be very well versed in the workings of the system.
So it makes sense to me since they are in position and have the knowledge of and experience with navigating the legal and legislative process, it seems logical that they make the legal challenges based on a violation of state law by the Governor, while using his official capacity to do so.
It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind why they have not as of yet challenged the Governor's violation of state law as cited by Hunter4Life or if they ever plan to take action on this.
And if not planning to challenge a violation of state law by the Governor, why?
Post by: Jingles on March 26, 2022, 03:14:46 PM
Post by: baldopepper on March 26, 2022, 03:54:19 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on March 26, 2022, 04:23:34 PM
Post by: Special T on March 26, 2022, 04:36:37 PM
Blackmail Sniper and others. Where do you think we can get the most bang for the buck?
Looks like I'm not the only one that thinks our only option is to get political.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/washington-hunters-urged-to-get-involved-in-state-politics/
Hunter4Life is who made the statement that Inslee's action was in a direct violation of the R.C.W.'s, therefore, giving Hunter4Life the benefit of that being an accurate and true statement regarding Inslee's action being a violation of state law.
Also, based on his post, it sounds like he is very well versed with HHC and their work.
So, with that in mind, I would think Hunter4Life and HHC associates would be the ones to take up the legal challenge since they are already in the arena and sound to be very well versed in the workings of the system.
So it makes sense to me since they are in position and have the knowledge of and experience with navigating the legal and legislative process, it seems logical that they make the legal challenges based on a violation of state law by the Governor, while using his official capacity to do so.
It would be interesting to know the reasoning behind why they have not as of yet challenged the Governor's violation of state law as cited by Hunter4Life or if they ever plan to take action on this.
And if not planning to challenge a violation of state law by the Governor, why?
I can't speak for him or HHC but from my vantage point $ is the biggest restraint. Are Sportsmen willing to invest 200k in a lawsuit? I doubt HHC has that kind of cheddar. How big are you willing to open your wallet? I know we all would have to contribute more than $20 . Or is some of that money better spent affect the races coming up? All of the House and a good portion of the senate is up for election. The political winds are nnot an area I understand. I'm up for giving rand rasing money but perhaps Hunt4Life can chime in.
Post by: Moose Master on March 26, 2022, 07:30:03 PM
Are there education requirements to run?
Is there age requirements to run?
Must you actively be a hunter or fisherman?
Is it nonpartisan position?
Is the campaign laws the same?
If you work for fish and game does that disqualified you?
Or
Make qualifications to be a Commissioner before appointed
Allow votes from Wildlife bio's that work for fish and game
Allow a sportsman council members to vote by region also
Data posted from Bio's 3 weeks prior to meeting
Be a active hunter or fishermen
Feel free to add to either list
Post by: KFhunter on March 26, 2022, 08:23:20 PM
Thoughts about electing Wildlife Commissioner by region.
Are there education requirements to run?
Is there age requirements to run?
Must you actively be a hunter or fisherman?
Is it nonpartisan position?
Is the campaign laws the same?
If you work for fish and game does that disqualified you?
Or
Make qualifications to be a Commissioner before appointed
Allow votes from Wildlife bio's that work for fish and game
Allow a sportsman council members to vote by region also
Data posted from Bio's 3 weeks prior to meeting
Be a active hunter or fishermen
Feel free to add to either list
Its mute, Inslee isn't going to give up that appointment authority, nor are the dems in power going to push a bill though to do it.
There's not one damm thing hunters can do to fix this mess except litigation possibly, and vote better at midterms
Post by: dreamingbig on March 26, 2022, 09:08:52 PM
Not buying tags does nothing. Tags and licenses are only 1/3 of wdfw budget so if we stop funding will be found elsewhere to make up for it and they’ll roll it into some “we’ve saved the animals” tax. You want opportunities then get out and create habitat on our public lands, everyone wants the benefit of good conservation but doesn’t want to do the work. Skip the 2x2 bucks because a “small buck is better than no buck”. Leave them so they can breed, a breeded doe by a small buck is better than a does that’s not pregnant. The fact we hunt before breeding season doesn’t make sense to me but that’s a matter of personal opinion.They aren’t going to manage the predators. You can work on habitat but you have to animals around to take advantage of it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Moose Master on March 26, 2022, 09:09:00 PM
Thoughts about electing Wildlife Commissioner by region.
Are there education requirements to run?
Is there age requirements to run?
Must you actively be a hunter or fisherman?
Is it nonpartisan position?
Is the campaign laws the same?
If you work for fish and game does that disqualified you?
Or
Make qualifications to be a Commissioner before appointed
Allow votes from Wildlife bio's that work for fish and game
Allow a sportsman council members to vote by region also
Data posted from Bio's 3 weeks prior to meeting
Be a active hunter or fishermen
Feel free to add to either list
Its mute, Inslee isn't going to give up that appointment authority, nor are the dems in power going to push a bill though to do it.
There's not one damm thing hunters can do to fix this mess except litigation possibly, and vote better at midterms
That was quick, guess I didn't expect that thought about the situation.