Post by: andersonjk4 on August 01, 2023, 02:05:11 PM
https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research (https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research)
The second interesting agenda item is another blue sheet presentation, again requested by Lehmkuhl. This one is about Social Sciences and its application to fish and wildlife management. The department is bringing in a pair of speakers for this one: Dr. David Trimbach, Conservation Social Scientist, and Dr. Braeden Van Deynze, Natural Resource Economist. Again I had to dig into these two a little bit.
https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/ (https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/)
https://www.vandeynze.com/ (https://www.vandeynze.com/)
I will be very interested to hear these two presentations. I give Commissioner Lehmkuhl some credit for making the requests. Especially the NAMWC. Probably won't change any minds, but at least the information is getting put out there. And I applaud the department for finding what appears to be a very qualified individual to present the information.
Post by: andersonjk4 on August 01, 2023, 02:09:44 PM
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings/2023/10-12aug2023-agenda (https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/commission/meetings/2023/10-12aug2023-agenda)
Post by: Ntbutcher on August 01, 2023, 02:14:29 PM
I was previewing the agenda for the upcoming commission meeting and found a couple very interesting agenda items. The first is a "Blue Sheet" presentation on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A blue sheet presentation appears to be a request from a commissioner to the department for more information on a topic. In this case it appears this was requested by Commissioner Lehmkuhl. The agenda lists John Organ as a guest speaker brought in by WDFW to present the information. I had to then look up who he is. See link and article below. But seems like a very knowelgable guy to be presenting this information.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research (https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research)
The second interesting agenda item is another blue sheet presentation, again requested by Lehmkuhl. This one is about Social Sciences and its application to fish and wildlife management. The department is bringing in a pair of speakers for this one: Dr. David Trimbach, Conservation Social Scientist, and Dr. Braeden Van Deynze, Natural Resource Economist. Again I had to dig into these two a little bit.
https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/ (https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/)
https://www.vandeynze.com/ (https://www.vandeynze.com/)
I will be very interested to hear these two presentations. I give Commissioner Lehmkuhl some credit for making the requests. Especially the NAMWC. Probably won't change any minds, but at least the information is getting put out there. And I applaud the department for finding what appears to be a very qualified individual to present the information.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/podcasts-focus-scrutiny-on-wdfw-commission/
Post by: Longfield1 on August 01, 2023, 02:51:19 PM
Post by: dwils233 on August 01, 2023, 05:13:25 PM
I was previewing the agenda for the upcoming commission meeting and found a couple very interesting agenda items. The first is a "Blue Sheet" presentation on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A blue sheet presentation appears to be a request from a commissioner to the department for more information on a topic. In this case it appears this was requested by Commissioner Lehmkuhl. The agenda lists John Organ as a guest speaker brought in by WDFW to present the information. I had to then look up who he is. See link and article below. But seems like a very knowelgable guy to be presenting this information.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research (https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research)
The second interesting agenda item is another blue sheet presentation, again requested by Lehmkuhl. This one is about Social Sciences and its application to fish and wildlife management. The department is bringing in a pair of speakers for this one: Dr. David Trimbach, Conservation Social Scientist, and Dr. Braeden Van Deynze, Natural Resource Economist. Again I had to dig into these two a little bit.
https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/ (https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/)
https://www.vandeynze.com/ (https://www.vandeynze.com/)
I will be very interested to hear these two presentations. I give Commissioner Lehmkuhl some credit for making the requests. Especially the NAMWC. Probably won't change any minds, but at least the information is getting put out there. And I applaud the department for finding what appears to be a very qualified individual to present the information.
Trimbach seems interesting, in that I have no idea about his values or positions but his approach does seem interested in actually working through natural resource issues to reach conclusions instead of just faking it to justify the desired outcome. He was supposed to facilitate the spring bear commission work earlier this year and asked them for real engagement and good faith commitment- that didn't seem to go over well.
I think he's the type of guy who, even if you don't agree with the outcome, is committed to a transparent and productive process
Post by: GASoline71 on August 02, 2023, 07:08:20 AM
He requested it since the NAM has been brought up extensively by hunters during comment periods and wanted to make sure everyone on the commission understands the model as it should be applied to management.
From what I have read, Dr. Organ is a no BS kinda guy that has no problem calling BS when he sees it. So I'm hopeful this will be an eye opener, and an ego deflator, for some on the commission.
Gary
Post by: KNOPHISH on August 02, 2023, 08:49:00 AM
Post by: mcrawfordaf on August 02, 2023, 08:59:36 AM
I presume having this guest speaker will satisfy his request?
Post by: ganghis on August 02, 2023, 09:44:15 AM
In a few letters I wrote, “I told them social science has no place in game management. The NAMWC has been working well for years”. It’s ridiculous to think they would make a hunting season based on someone’s hurt feelings, sad but true.
Like it or not, social science has been creeping into wildlife departments at universities for years. It's called 'human dimensions' - basically studying attitudes towards hunting, predator-rancher conflict, etc. Here's an example
https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/wildlifevalues/wp-content/uploads/sites/124/2019/01/AWV-National-Final-Report.pdf
Post by: BlackRiverTaxidermy on August 02, 2023, 09:44:57 AM
****I would urge everyone to get involved in these issues. And what I mean by get involved is write letters to your legislators, and the commissioners themselves in opposition of their 'feelings and opinions' base decision vs. sticking to their own biologists and science-based facts. If you're not comfortable writing a letter there are LOTS of organizations that are getting on board in this state in opposition to the commissions new proposal of rewriting 'conservation' and moving into anti-hunting buzzword filled document with 'preservation', 'intrinsic value' and 'environmental concerns'. Such organizations include HOWL, Blood Origins, American Bear Foundation (newly formed Washington Chapter), and even the RMEF have spoken up against these new proposals and terminology in recent weeks. They are slowing taking this all away from us and you can bitch about it, or you can do something about it. The recent podcasts of us interviewing Lemkuhl and Reagan are just the start, more is coming.....but we need support, numbers, and good arguing facts, not opinions, with educated rebuttals against what they are trying to do. Attend the meetings, either in person or by Zoom, write letters, donate (if you can) to some of those organizations that are at the front of this fight. I have two full-time jobs, a family, hunting when I can, and I'm still doing the best I can to attend, question, email, and research proposals and fact check some of these ridiculous claims this commission says such as 'hunters don't contribute funds to conservation'.
I dare each of you...get involved.
Post by: GASoline71 on August 02, 2023, 09:57:21 AM
I dare each of you...get involved.
THIS!!! :tup:
Gary
Post by: andersonjk4 on August 02, 2023, 11:22:40 AM
I was previewing the agenda for the upcoming commission meeting and found a couple very interesting agenda items. The first is a "Blue Sheet" presentation on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A blue sheet presentation appears to be a request from a commissioner to the department for more information on a topic. In this case it appears this was requested by Commissioner Lehmkuhl. The agenda lists John Organ as a guest speaker brought in by WDFW to present the information. I had to then look up who he is. See link and article below. But seems like a very knowelgable guy to be presenting this information.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research (https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research)
The second interesting agenda item is another blue sheet presentation, again requested by Lehmkuhl. This one is about Social Sciences and its application to fish and wildlife management. The department is bringing in a pair of speakers for this one: Dr. David Trimbach, Conservation Social Scientist, and Dr. Braeden Van Deynze, Natural Resource Economist. Again I had to dig into these two a little bit.
https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/ (https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/)
https://www.vandeynze.com/ (https://www.vandeynze.com/)
I will be very interested to hear these two presentations. I give Commissioner Lehmkuhl some credit for making the requests. Especially the NAMWC. Probably won't change any minds, but at least the information is getting put out there. And I applaud the department for finding what appears to be a very qualified individual to present the information.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/podcasts-focus-scrutiny-on-wdfw-commission/
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't aware of the Broadside podcasts with the commissioners. I am listening to the Lehmkuhl podcast now and will listen to the Raegan one next.
Thank you BlackRiverTaxidermy for your involvment in these. Well done!
Post by: nwmein199 on August 02, 2023, 11:32:03 AM
I was previewing the agenda for the upcoming commission meeting and found a couple very interesting agenda items. The first is a "Blue Sheet" presentation on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. A blue sheet presentation appears to be a request from a commissioner to the department for more information on a topic. In this case it appears this was requested by Commissioner Lehmkuhl. The agenda lists John Organ as a guest speaker brought in by WDFW to present the information. I had to then look up who he is. See link and article below. But seems like a very knowelgable guy to be presenting this information.
https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research (https://www.boone-crockett.org/welcoming-new-leader-fisheries-wildlife-research)
The second interesting agenda item is another blue sheet presentation, again requested by Lehmkuhl. This one is about Social Sciences and its application to fish and wildlife management. The department is bringing in a pair of speakers for this one: Dr. David Trimbach, Conservation Social Scientist, and Dr. Braeden Van Deynze, Natural Resource Economist. Again I had to dig into these two a little bit.
https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/ (https://nwstraits.org/about-us/commission/science-advisory-committee/dr-david-trimbach/)
https://www.vandeynze.com/ (https://www.vandeynze.com/)
I will be very interested to hear these two presentations. I give Commissioner Lehmkuhl some credit for making the requests. Especially the NAMWC. Probably won't change any minds, but at least the information is getting put out there. And I applaud the department for finding what appears to be a very qualified individual to present the information.
https://nwsportsmanmag.com/podcasts-focus-scrutiny-on-wdfw-commission/
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I wasn't aware of the Broadside podcasts with the commissioners. I am listening to the Lehmkuhl podcast now and will listen to the Raegan one next.
Thank you BlackRiverTaxidermy for your involvment in these. Well done!
Another podcast discussing the WDFW Wildlife Commission and this upcoming meeting: https://hunttalkradio.com/2023/07/25/episode-220-junking-the-north-american-model-of-wildlife-conservation-episode-220/
Post by: blackdog on August 12, 2023, 06:41:10 PM
Post by: high_hunter on August 12, 2023, 10:59:21 PM
I believe this weeks Commission meeting was productive for hunters. Dr. Organs presentation was powerful and well received.
I'd second that.
Both it and the social science presentations were enlightening, informative and well done. I definitely think Dr Organs was helpful and overall very pro hunting. Certainly got sick of Smith interjecting her self during both presentations and was dishartened to hear Lehmkuhl state he wanted some of the social science techniques to "help push the new management plan through", although may have been mispoke as it was at the end of a long day.
I did enjoy him and Ragen speaking on The Broadside podcasts recently but am concerned about their overall support for hunters and sports people.
Wish I could have attended or caught Thursdays but was able to watch most of Fridays and some of Saturdays with my comments sent in ahead of time.
Post by: hunter399 on August 13, 2023, 04:13:14 AM
I seen this posted just recently,and I like this guy.
We share similar view on this pile of BS.
Post by: Firstgenhunter on August 13, 2023, 07:06:05 AM
Post by: TriggerMike on August 13, 2023, 11:08:12 AM
Yep, I was one of the main speakers and can confirm. However, this is the start of something massive...And what would this massive thing be
Post by: Tbar on August 13, 2023, 11:28:14 AM
I believe this weeks Commission meeting was productive for hunters. Dr. Organs presentation was powerful and well received.I completely disagree. It was a horrible weekend for hunters. These guys are at least one step ahead and will absolutely cherry pick the NAM to transition into precautionary principles based off the Tennant of science. The strategy is impressive and masterful, hunters continue to lose ground. Even choosing Organ over Mahoney.
Post by: Gettin Birdie on August 13, 2023, 12:25:44 PM
Post by: dwils233 on August 13, 2023, 02:27:58 PM
It used to be called "Social Studies" because there is nothing scientific about subjective b.s. They replaced the word studies with science to sound more credible and dip*censored*s hear the "science" word and think its objective or proven fact :bash: Just a cover for extremist idealogues, like CRT is.
That's not quite accurate. The core social sciences- linguistics, geography, anthropology, archeology, law, economics, are called sciences because they involve the use of scientific method and analysis in forming and proving hypothesis. Science is relevant to their outcomes and/or is utilized as a process. Economics for example uses qualitative and quantitative data, statistical analysis and iterative development for theories. There are certainly less hard science fields, but the most respected and established ones are credible because of science or the scientific method
Post by: hunter399 on August 13, 2023, 03:08:31 PM
Yep, I was one of the main speakers and can confirm. However, this is the start of something massive...And what would this massive thing be
Trying to cut the fall bear season now.
End cougar hunting.
Basically saying population counts are not hard counts,such as with deer and elk.Not enough science to approve bear and cougar seasons in the next three years management plan.
It a whole new level of insanity.
Basically anytime a new season setting proposal comes into play,they are attempting to cut any predator season they can.
But reality is that us as humans top apex predator has been coexisting with most wildlife under the north America model for a long time. Season should not drastically change without science proving a need to do so. Not change season based on lack of science. IT'S an EXCUSE to change seasons. Season setting Science is over the past 80 years says it works.
Honestly certain commissioners are butthurt over lawsuits and petitions that keep at there throats. So they have decided to keep chopping at our opportunity.
That's not my YouTube channel,but he does a really good explanation of a recent commission meeting.
Post by: fishngamereaper on August 13, 2023, 03:34:55 PM
Post by: hunter399 on August 13, 2023, 04:11:14 PM
Decrease predator hunting, increase predators, decrease ungulates, decrease tags, decrease hunter's.... checkmate...Yup pretty much.
I was a little skeptical if you'd say that a few years ago.
With this recent meeting. I'm a believer now.
Post by: MADMAX on August 13, 2023, 04:30:37 PM
Decrease predator hunting, increase predators, decrease ungulates, decrease tags, decrease hunter's.... checkmate...Yup pretty much.
I was a little skeptical if you'd say that a few years ago.
With this recent meeting. I'm a believer now.
They wont stop until your unarmed
Playing the long game at least 10 years now
Post by: GOcougsHunter on August 13, 2023, 05:02:08 PM
In today's Seattle Times editorial section:
Washington wildlife: Thank you for the support
Aug. 11, 2023 at 10:30 am
By Letters editor
The Seattle Times
Just about six months ago the director of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Kelly Susewind, and I, as a WDFW commission member, published an Op-Ed in The Seattle Times [“Fund the protection of wildlife and habitat for all Washingtonians,” Feb. 22, Opinion]. We discussed the very real biodiversity crisis facing this state and the actions we can take as an agency to slow or reverse the toll that climate change and population growth is taking on our state’s natural resources.
This note is to thank Washington citizens and the Legislature for responding with funding to significantly add to our ability to do just that. The fact that the agency is ready to tackle difficult issues such as improving habitat for our wildlife shows a willingness to grow past the outdated and inaccurate perception that WDFW exists simply to support hunting and fishing. I believe there is nothing wrong with responsible hunting and fishing (an opinion shared by a large majority of Washingtonians). That is not the primary challenge. Managing and conserving our resources so that they will still exist now and into the future is.
We all must adapt to new realities. Thank you for the opportunity to grow that response.
Barbara Baker, Olympia
This is what is called "Scope Creep" in the medical community. The commissioners are now openly diminishing the role of consumptive users and see their role and overreach as something much bigger than their mandate. The nod to "responsible hunting and fishing" is pandering and obviously disingenuous shown by the current behavior of the commission.
Post by: MADMAX on August 13, 2023, 05:18:20 PM
Frog in slow boil pot
Post by: Gettin Birdie on August 13, 2023, 05:33:40 PM
It used to be called "Social Studies" because there is nothing scientific about subjective b.s. They replaced the word studies with science to sound more credible and dip*censored*s hear the "science" word and think its objective or proven fact :bash: Just a cover for extremist idealogues, like CRT is.
That's not quite accurate. The core social sciences- linguistics, geography, anthropology, archeology, law, economics, are called sciences because they involve the use of scientific method and analysis in forming and proving hypothesis. Science is relevant to their outcomes and/or is utilized as a process. Economics for example uses qualitative and quantitative data, statistical analysis and iterative development for theories. There are certainly less hard science fields, but the most respected and established ones are credible because of science or the scientific method
Oh I agree, and am aware of all that, implementing the scientific method as much as possible in these fields is both necessary and useful. I'm kind of referring to sociology in general, not geography and economics, etc. and the mixed fields that utilize actual scientific practices, some don't at all, or it's all causation by correlation, which equals fact to them, when the entire field is subjective in nature. The system works if people are honest and know the limitations, but many are not and look to push an agenda.
Post by: TriggerMike on August 13, 2023, 07:17:15 PM
I dont think that's what he was getting at. I'll wait for him to respond because I'm genuinely curious.Yep, I was one of the main speakers and can confirm. However, this is the start of something massive...And what would this massive thing be
Trying to cut the fall bear season now.
End cougar hunting.
Basically saying population counts are not hard counts,such as with deer and elk.Not enough science to approve bear and cougar seasons in the next three years management plan.
It a whole new level of insanity.
Basically anytime a new season setting proposal comes into play,they are attempting to cut any predator season they can.
But reality is that us as humans top apex predator has been coexisting with most wildlife under the north America model for a long time. Season should not drastically change without science proving a need to do so. Not change season based on lack of science. IT'S an EXCUSE to change seasons. Season setting Science is over the past 80 years says it works.
Honestly certain commissioners are butthurt over lawsuits and petitions that keep at there throats. So they have decided to keep chopping at our opportunity.
That's not my YouTube channel,but he does a really good explanation of a recent commission meeting.
Post by: hunter399 on August 13, 2023, 07:22:45 PM
What are you talking about.I dont think that's what he was getting at. I'll wait for him to respond because I'm genuinely curious.Yep, I was one of the main speakers and can confirm. However, this is the start of something massive...And what would this massive thing be
Trying to cut the fall bear season now.
End cougar hunting.
Basically saying population counts are not hard counts,such as with deer and elk.Not enough science to approve bear and cougar seasons in the next three years management plan.
It a whole new level of insanity.
Basically anytime a new season setting proposal comes into play,they are attempting to cut any predator season they can.
But reality is that us as humans top apex predator has been coexisting with most wildlife under the north America model for a long time. Season should not drastically change without science proving a need to do so. Not change season based on lack of science. IT'S an EXCUSE to change seasons. Season setting Science is over the past 80 years says it works.
Honestly certain commissioners are butthurt over lawsuits and petitions that keep at there throats. So they have decided to keep chopping at our opportunity.
That's not my YouTube channel,but he does a really good explanation of a recent commission meeting.
All I said about his video is this.
That's not my YouTube channel,but he does a really good explanation of a recent commission meeting.
So the rest is my own opinion. Only views I share with him is a co-exist, balance of wildlife. That's it.and whatever he tells ya in his content I guess.I don't know his opinion on the commission. At this point,don't really care. Everybody has there own.
So what exactly is the problem,with my opinion or what I said about his video.
Please explain.
Can't wait to hear this,should be great🤔
Sorry I went back and put a space in for ya,so you could separate my opinion,from what I said about his video.
But I guess it's to late for that.
Next I'll watch my grammar better ,and explain better when I share a similar view as another.
To add ,I'm sick of the commission or talking about them and all the BS that goes with it.
You all continue gripping about the lost cause that is hunting in this state.
@TriggerMike
Post by: 87Ford on August 13, 2023, 08:13:26 PM
Post by: nwwanderer on August 13, 2023, 08:20:07 PM
Post by: blackdog on August 13, 2023, 08:22:43 PM
Post by: hunter399 on August 13, 2023, 08:25:53 PM
Folks we are in deep *censored*.Voted best comment on this topic all day.
"My opinion"
Post by: TriggerMike on August 14, 2023, 10:12:07 AM
We are wondering what Firstgenhunter meant when he posted…. “This is the start of something massive”Yep. Thank you. I have no idea what Hunter399 is going on about.
Post by: Ntbutcher on August 14, 2023, 10:32:59 AM
We are wondering what Firstgenhunter meant when he posted…. “This is the start of something massive”Yep. Thank you. I have no idea what Hunter399 is going on about.
Might be referring to the proposed closure of Bear and Cougar hunting starting April 2024. As well as Elk draw only. I've heard this referenced several times. I'd be interested if someone could lets us know the context surrounding this statement.
Post by: TriggerMike on August 14, 2023, 10:36:10 AM
Is this proposal written/published somewhere? Is there a recording of anyone saying it? Not saying I don't believe they don't want that to happen because I do believe that but im curious if there's something actually real behind this statement or if it's just a complete rumor as of now.We are wondering what Firstgenhunter meant when he posted…. “This is the start of something massive”Yep. Thank you. I have no idea what Hunter399 is going on about.
Might be referring to the proposed closure of Bear and Cougar hunting starting April 2024. As well as Elk draw only. I've heard this referenced several times. I'd be interested if someone could lets us know the context surrounding this statement.
Post by: mcrawfordaf on August 14, 2023, 10:45:42 AM
Is this proposal written/published somewhere? Is there a recording of anyone saying it? Not saying I don't believe they don't want that to happen because I do believe that but im curious if there's something actually real behind this statement or if it's just a complete rumor as of now.We are wondering what Firstgenhunter meant when he posted…. “This is the start of something massive”Yep. Thank you. I have no idea what Hunter399 is going on about.
Might be referring to the proposed closure of Bear and Cougar hunting starting April 2024. As well as Elk draw only. I've heard this referenced several times. I'd be interested if someone could lets us know the context surrounding this statement.
From what I understand the commission is trying to jam through predator hunting regulation over the next three years without taking the proper routes. There was back and forth via the commission and the WDFW, with WDFW warning the commission that they need to slow down and go through the correct channels for any changes they'd like to make. The recording can be found here to listen to for yourself: https://tvw.org/video/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-wildlife-committee-2023081060/?eventID=2023081060 (https://tvw.org/video/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-wildlife-committee-2023081060/?eventID=2023081060)
Post by: Ntbutcher on August 14, 2023, 12:12:08 PM
Is this proposal written/published somewhere? Is there a recording of anyone saying it? Not saying I don't believe they don't want that to happen because I do believe that but im curious if there's something actually real behind this statement or if it's just a complete rumor as of now.We are wondering what Firstgenhunter meant when he posted…. “This is the start of something massive”Yep. Thank you. I have no idea what Hunter399 is going on about.
Might be referring to the proposed closure of Bear and Cougar hunting starting April 2024. As well as Elk draw only. I've heard this referenced several times. I'd be interested if someone could lets us know the context surrounding this statement.
From what I understand the commission is trying to jam through predator hunting regulation over the next three years without taking the proper routes. There was back and forth via the commission and the WDFW, with WDFW warning the commission that they need to slow down and go through the correct channels for any changes they'd like to make. The recording can be found here to listen to for yourself: https://tvw.org/video/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-wildlife-committee-2023081060/?eventID=2023081060 (https://tvw.org/video/washington-fish-and-wildlife-commission-wildlife-committee-2023081060/?eventID=2023081060)
Seems pretty clear after watching that they are mapping out a path to cancel both species. Whether it be the "insufficient data/population counting", which is an unachievable goal and red herring. Or if that fails they will implement "social science" to achieve the same result. They've got multiple weapons to bludgeon us with.
Post by: 2MANY on August 14, 2023, 12:17:42 PM
The fun is just beginning!!!!!!
Post by: Alan K on August 14, 2023, 12:35:08 PM
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
Post by: Ntbutcher on August 14, 2023, 12:53:57 PM
For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
I'm not sure if you watched the above link/commission meeting. But who is commissioner Myers? He seems to implicate otherwise with some unknown data set that implies we should have greatly reduced season or none at all maybe.
Maybe someone can speak to who he is and what his role is. And maybe the data he is alluding to.
Post by: mcrawfordaf on August 14, 2023, 12:56:00 PM
For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Post by: baker5150 on August 14, 2023, 01:13:12 PM
For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Lehmkul spoke about this on the podcast. They are asking for data and not getting it.
This is what Lehmkul sent me when i asked him directly...
"I do trust the DFW staff and believe they are dedicated and top-notch. However, some commissioners, including me, felt that the science, data, and analysis were incomplete. We asked for a fuller analysis of the all the issues in a comprehensive, standard form typical of such documents. For example, I thought they did a very good job of detailing the Blue Mt elk situation; and, as a result I voted with the majority to approve their recommended 2-cougar bag limit for the area. The whole commission voted in February 2021 for a full analysis of the spring bear issue; but, it was never done despite me and Commissioner McIsaac bringing it up several times during 2021. I don’t know why the commission and staff did not follow through."
I don't want to trash on any Bio's either, but I'm in no way surprised when I hear of a Gov't employee not following thru on somthing.
Post by: Special T on August 14, 2023, 01:18:54 PM
For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Lehmkul spoke about this on the podcast. They are asking for data and not getting it.
This is what Lehmkul sent me when i asked him directly...
"I do trust the DFW staff and believe they are dedicated and top-notch. However, some commissioners, including me, felt that the science, data, and analysis were incomplete. We asked for a fuller analysis of the all the issues in a comprehensive, standard form typical of such documents. For example, I thought they did a very good job of detailing the Blue Mt elk situation; and, as a result I voted with the majority to approve their recommended 2-cougar bag limit for the area. The whole commission voted in February 2021 for a full analysis of the spring bear issue; but, it was never done despite me and Commissioner McIsaac bringing it up several times during 2021. I don’t know why the commission and staff did not follow through."
I don't want to trash on any Bio's either, but I'm in no way surprised when I hear of a Gov't employee not following thru on somthing.
They want to study everything to death. The commission often asks for information that is not available OR feasible to obtain either financially or time wise. I belive this is a tool used by them to force change that hurts sportsmen.
Post by: ducks4days on August 14, 2023, 01:22:20 PM
For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Lehmkul spoke about this on the podcast. They are asking for data and not getting it.
This is what Lehmkul sent me when i asked him directly...
"I do trust the DFW staff and believe they are dedicated and top-notch. However, some commissioners, including me, felt that the science, data, and analysis were incomplete. We asked for a fuller analysis of the all the issues in a comprehensive, standard form typical of such documents. For example, I thought they did a very good job of detailing the Blue Mt elk situation; and, as a result I voted with the majority to approve their recommended 2-cougar bag limit for the area. The whole commission voted in February 2021 for a full analysis of the spring bear issue; but, it was never done despite me and Commissioner McIsaac bringing it up several times during 2021. I don’t know why the commission and staff did not follow through."
I don't want to trash on any Bio's either, but I'm in no way surprised when I hear of a Gov't employee not following thru on somthing.
They want to study everything to death. The commission often asks for information that is not available OR feasible to obtain either financially or time wise. I belive this is a tool used by them to force change that hurts sportsmen.
They dont want to study anything. They want a target outcome and are fishing for any justification to get it, and discarding anything that would stand in the way.
Post by: hunter399 on August 14, 2023, 01:30:31 PM
I agree with all the above.For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Lehmkul spoke about this on the podcast. They are asking for data and not getting it.
This is what Lehmkul sent me when i asked him directly...
"I do trust the DFW staff and believe they are dedicated and top-notch. However, some commissioners, including me, felt that the science, data, and analysis were incomplete. We asked for a fuller analysis of the all the issues in a comprehensive, standard form typical of such documents. For example, I thought they did a very good job of detailing the Blue Mt elk situation; and, as a result I voted with the majority to approve their recommended 2-cougar bag limit for the area. The whole commission voted in February 2021 for a full analysis of the spring bear issue; but, it was never done despite me and Commissioner McIsaac bringing it up several times during 2021. I don’t know why the commission and staff did not follow through."
I don't want to trash on any Bio's either, but I'm in no way surprised when I hear of a Gov't employee not following thru on somthing.
They want to study everything to death. The commission often asks for information that is not available OR feasible to obtain either financially or time wise. I belive this is a tool used by them to force change that hurts sportsmen.
They dont want to study anything. They want a target outcome and are fishing for any justification to get it, and discarding anything that would stand in the way.
Just wanted to add .....
Whatever happened to harvest rates,I thought that was the standard for the most part of, population density,overall health of herd or said animals. Does every aspect need a 5 year study.
It's not rocket science.
Harvest rates down--- population down
Harvest rates up---- population up.
Then looking at long term trends over the past years.
Shouldn't that be enough to set a season.
Post by: Special T on August 14, 2023, 01:41:49 PM
I agree with you. I might not have stated it clearly but they ask for science they know they cannot or won't get and use that as the excuse to move on thier adgenda.For me with bears at least it's really simple. Cougars likely the same.
Bear populations were sustainable (by the definition of still being around) for decades upon decades upon decades despite unlimited bag limits in western Washington, baiting allowed, trapping allowed, hounds allowed, even bounties for timber damage. If those levels of harvest were not sustainable, bears wouldn't be here today.
After 30 years of no highly effective means of take, even with the tiny fraction of depredation removals, how can anyone say with a straight face that bear populations are anything but as high as they've been in the last 75 years+...
It doesn't take a new study to put two and two together, and like others have said, a study isn't and shouldn't be necessary to continue with the status quo, only if it needs diverging from.
One of the WDFW members said it more eloquently during the meeting but the Commission basically spit in the face of the last 10 years of WDFW's biologists and their work.
Lehmkul spoke about this on the podcast. They are asking for data and not getting it.
This is what Lehmkul sent me when i asked him directly...
"I do trust the DFW staff and believe they are dedicated and top-notch. However, some commissioners, including me, felt that the science, data, and analysis were incomplete. We asked for a fuller analysis of the all the issues in a comprehensive, standard form typical of such documents. For example, I thought they did a very good job of detailing the Blue Mt elk situation; and, as a result I voted with the majority to approve their recommended 2-cougar bag limit for the area. The whole commission voted in February 2021 for a full analysis of the spring bear issue; but, it was never done despite me and Commissioner McIsaac bringing it up several times during 2021. I don’t know why the commission and staff did not follow through."
I don't want to trash on any Bio's either, but I'm in no way surprised when I hear of a Gov't employee not following thru on somthing.
They want to study everything to death. The commission often asks for information that is not available OR feasible to obtain either financially or time wise. I belive this is a tool used by them to force change that hurts sportsmen.
They dont want to study anything. They want a target outcome and are fishing for any justification to get it, and discarding anything that would stand in the way.
Post by: hunter399 on August 14, 2023, 01:46:59 PM
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
Post by: baker5150 on August 14, 2023, 03:35:40 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here.
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
If they wanted Cougar hunting gone, why did they increase to a 2 tag limit in the Blues last year?
Post by: Tbar on August 14, 2023, 03:43:18 PM
Posturing, they are a step ahead. Cougar hunting is at risk.I'm just thinking out loud here.
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
If they wanted Cougar hunting gone, why did they increase to a 2 tag limit in the Blues last year?
Post by: Mtnwalker on August 14, 2023, 03:52:45 PM
I'm just thinking out loud here.
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
If they wanted Cougar hunting gone, why did they increase to a 2 tag limit in the Blues last year?
Probably to shut people up because they knew it would have zero effect on harvest and they can claim they’re being proactive
Post by: hunter399 on August 14, 2023, 04:13:01 PM
For all I know,they want bear gone completely too.
It's hard to read there true agenda,but the end goal is clear.
Consumption of wild animals is not looking good.
Post by: Special T on August 14, 2023, 04:17:18 PM
Posturing, they are a step ahead. Cougar hunting is at risk.I'm just thinking out loud here.
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
If they wanted Cougar hunting gone, why did they increase to a 2 tag limit in the Blues last year?
That was in the Blues. The Director implemented that because he could do that on his own and didn't have to consult the Commissioners. If he wanted to increase the quoatas or increase the season length it was a commission issue.
In the grand scheme of things it accomplished nothing, but if the Director had opened up those other 2 issues the comission could have reduced quoatas, opportunity ECT. To me this proves the Problem is the Comissioners. One of our new comissioners Woody Meyers is supporting 1 bear a year. Unfortunately some sportsmen didn't do thier due diligence and supported his appointment. Unfortunately he appears to be a Weilgus acholight.
Post by: hunter399 on August 14, 2023, 06:09:48 PM
Posturing, they are a step ahead. Cougar hunting is at risk.I'm just thinking out loud here.
So don't slam me too hard.
Thinking they want to take our second bear tag away.
Which will do know good,cause very few people harvest two.
So unless the amount of hunters actively hunting bears changes ALOT. Bear harvest stays the same across the board.
Cougar and Coyote they just want it gone .
We all know that's pressure from there little wildlife groups that poke at them like a 5year old,and whisper in there ear all the time.
If they wanted Cougar hunting gone, why did they increase to a 2 tag limit in the Blues last year?
That was in the Blues. The Director implemented that because he could do that on his own and didn't have to consult the Commissioners. If he wanted to increase the quoatas or increase the season length it was a commission issue.
In the grand scheme of things it accomplished nothing, but if the Director had opened up those other 2 issues the comission could have reduced quoatas, opportunity ECT. To me this proves the Problem is the Comissioners. One of our new comissioners Woody Meyers is supporting 1 bear a year. Unfortunately some sportsmen didn't do thier due diligence and supported his appointment. Unfortunately he appears to be a Weilgus acholight.
Well I know Barbara Baker in that podcast was kinda holding the two fall bear tags over our heads. Basically saying that spring bear was not needed ,we have plenty of fall bear hunting.
Also holding that 30,000 comments up pretty high.
I'm not gonna hold it as bad, a 1 bear limit on that woody.
It won't effect bear harvest numbers at all.
Like I said in a post already,the only thing that can effect harvest rates is more hunters.
I bought a second tag last year and didn't fill it.
I'm not against it, and some hunters are pretty good at filling both.
So I'm not sure if his angle is to trade the second bear tag for spring bear return. Or if he just feels that two bear harvest is greedy or unethical. We would have to ask him.
But just like this conservation draft,things are gonna change.
And most likely we are not gonna like it.
Post by: Alan K on August 14, 2023, 07:07:11 PM
Post by: hunter399 on August 14, 2023, 07:22:17 PM
Populations aren't being held in check even with 2 bear tags allowed. In the absence of spring bear they ought to allow even more tags. It takes time and effort just to fill 2, only the most serious of bear hunters would fill more yet. It's those serious hunters that we need to keep the populations flat, or hopefully start reducing it. Most hunters view bear as an opportunity species, not something they dedicate time to.I agree totally.
Just like the 2 tag quota in the blues for cougar.
Just cause you hand out tags , doesn't necessarily have the desired effect.
But ya I'm sure bear population could sustain more tags.
I'm trying to figure out if the commission has an angle in reduced fall season . Or if they are just slapping us in the face.
Post by: Special T on August 15, 2023, 08:30:40 AM
Populations aren't being held in check even with 2 bear tags allowed. In the absence of spring bear they ought to allow even more tags. It takes time and effort just to fill 2, only the most serious of bear hunters would fill more yet. It's those serious hunters that we need to keep the populations flat, or hopefully start reducing it. Most hunters view bear as an opportunity species, not something they dedicate time to.I agree totally.
Just like the 2 tag quota in the blues for cougar.
Just cause you hand out tags , doesn't necessarily have the desired effect.
But ya I'm sure bear population could sustain more tags.
I'm trying to figure out if the commission has an angle in reduced fall season . Or if they are just slapping us in the face.
It's fried tofu for the Anti Hunting crowd.
Post by: Firstgenhunter on August 15, 2023, 08:59:23 AM
1. Antis and the anti commissioners openly declared war on Washington hunters when Rowland said "Hunters should be nervous" And that a new group is managing wildlife and that we've ruled it for too long. Commissioners are not happy with her rants and Baker and Smith spent the meeting playing damage control.
2. They discussed turning elk into a draw-only hunt across the board and floated around banning predator hunting by April. Staff and even a commissioner pushed back against this behavior multiple times but they were shut down. Some of the commissioners treat staff horribly.
3. More and more hunters are going to get involved. We beat antis during public comment on both days. The final number was 28 pro-hunting and 21 anti. To be fair, a lot of hunters didn't get to speak because they were cut off due to time. The number would have been even bigger if time wasn't an issue. Almost every speaker said they were a member of HOWL which pissed off antis big time.
4. The Conservation Coalition was formed!! We're Washington State hunters that protect our hunting rights, traditions, and hunting lifestyle while encouraging conservation. We are grassroots and everyday hunters who are doing this. HOWL works with us almost full-time at this point. This has been in the works for a while but has finally gotten off the ground. We recruited a ton of speakers for the august meeting. What we're doing is helping hunters speak at meetings, getting hunters in the know and educating people on whats happening and helping them get involved. A lot of good stuff is coming soon. Here are some upcoming projects we have.
We are working on doing a social media campaign with hunter facts and statistics, working with HOWL on action items, introductions for our founding members over on our insta and a weekly/monthly newsletter. We are also planning on doing a podcast recap of the meeting with Andy Elliot, one of our founding members. If you guys want to learn more feel free to message me. Its time we unite to save Washington hunting!!
Post by: Tbar on August 15, 2023, 09:53:45 PM
Hey everyone, sorry for not replying sooner. Life got busy and I haven't had a time to sit down and write a good response. Here were my biggest takeaways from the meetingBest of luck.
1. Antis and the anti commissioners openly declared war on Washington hunters when Rowland said "Hunters should be nervous" And that a new group is managing wildlife and that we've ruled it for too long. Commissioners are not happy with her rants and Baker and Smith spent the meeting playing damage control.
2. They discussed turning elk into a draw-only hunt across the board and floated around banning predator hunting by April. Staff and even a commissioner pushed back against this behavior multiple times but they were shut down. Some of the commissioners treat staff horribly.
3. More and more hunters are going to get involved. We beat antis during public comment on both days. The final number was 28 pro-hunting and 21 anti. To be fair, a lot of hunters didn't get to speak because they were cut off due to time. The number would have been even bigger if time wasn't an issue. Almost every speaker said they were a member of HOWL which pissed off antis big time.
4. The Conservation Coalition was formed!! We're Washington State hunters that protect our hunting rights, traditions, and hunting lifestyle while encouraging conservation. We are grassroots and everyday hunters who are doing this. HOWL works with us almost full-time at this point. This has been in the works for a while but has finally gotten off the ground. We recruited a ton of speakers for the august meeting. What we're doing is helping hunters speak at meetings, getting hunters in the know and educating people on whats happening and helping them get involved. A lot of good stuff is coming soon. Here are some upcoming projects we have.
We are working on doing a social media campaign with hunter facts and statistics, working with HOWL on action items, introductions for our founding members over on our insta and a weekly/monthly newsletter. We are also planning on doing a podcast recap of the meeting with Andy Elliot, one of our founding members. If you guys want to learn more feel free to message me. Its time we unite to save Washington hunting!!
Post by: timberfaller on August 15, 2023, 11:13:01 PM
Warned people years ago about this group of Eco-terroist, but they have money and stupidity(aka: politicians) behind them!
https://610kona.com/petition-to-return-spring-bear-hunting-in-washington-denied/
Post by: Skyvalhunter on August 16, 2023, 05:05:54 AM
Post by: hughjorgan on August 16, 2023, 05:56:43 AM
A lawsuit needs to be filed against the WDFW for discrimination against hunters and the desire that the bear population needs to be kept in check
WDFW isn’t the problem the commission is.
Everyone should be supporting the sportsman alliance who is going to be filing lawsuits against the commissioners.
Post by: fishngamereaper on August 16, 2023, 08:47:30 AM
A lawsuit needs to be filed against the WDFW for discrimination against hunters and the desire that the bear population needs to be kept in check
I would suspect that a substantial portion of wdfw is getting tired of the rouge commission. If this keeps up 60 percent of wdfw will be out of a job in the next 5 years or re branded as climate change officer's tasked with cleaning pit toilets and gathering spotted frog crap to test as biofuel options..
Post by: Mtnwalker on August 16, 2023, 09:03:33 AM
A lawsuit needs to be filed against the WDFW for discrimination against hunters and the desire that the bear population needs to be kept in check
I would suspect that a substantial portion of wdfw is getting tired of the rouge commission. If this keeps up 60 percent of wdfw will be out of a job in the next 5 years or re branded as climate change officer's tasked with cleaning pit toilets and gathering spotted frog crap to test as biofuel options..
I'm not sure about that. I was just talking with a family member who was with them for about 10 years in fisheries and left last year, he said in that 10 years it went from most of his co-workers being hunters and fishermen to almost none. WDFW itself is being over taken by granola preservationists from the ground up, it's not just the commission
Post by: James on August 29, 2023, 12:03:51 PM
I caught the bear and cougar "decoupling" from other fall season settings, and the bear "Whataboutism" so they can take those from us, but I missed the elk discussion.
Thank you
Post by: buckfvr on August 29, 2023, 01:27:35 PM
A lawsuit needs to be filed against the WDFW for discrimination against hunters and the desire that the bear population needs to be kept in check
I would suspect that a substantial portion of wdfw is getting tired of the rouge commission. If this keeps up 60 percent of wdfw will be out of a job in the next 5 years or re branded as climate change officer's tasked with cleaning pit toilets and gathering spotted frog crap to test as biofuel options..
I'm not sure about that. I was just talking with a family member who was with them for about 10 years in fisheries and left last year, he said in that 10 years it went from most of his co-workers being hunters and fishermen to almost none. WDFW itself is being over taken by granola preservationists from the ground up, it's not just the commission
The take over has been in process for a long time. What/who remains of the give a darn wdfw employees are either in the job preservation mode hanging on until retirement or trying to find a graceful exit. It seems as though no one will speak against wdfw from inside, but there does seem to be some ill will passed around after folks leave wdfw. The job has become so intentionally politicized that it is/should be distasteful to anyone NOT on board with current policy which is anti everything.
Post by: Deserthunter2016 on August 30, 2023, 07:22:09 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: nwwanderer on August 30, 2023, 08:03:48 AM
Post by: BlackRiverTaxidermy on August 30, 2023, 10:53:25 AM
Can someone tell me where in the meeting they proposed to make elk hunting in wa draw only?
I caught the bear and cougar "decoupling" from other fall season settings, and the bear "Whataboutism" so they can take those from us, but I missed the elk discussion.
Thank you
It was day three in the meetings (Saturday). They were talking with their lead bio about the game management plan and reg setting for the next three years. He replied that they would not have the studies done in time for their decisions in October to which several of the commissioners (Rowland and Smith) stated they didn't need the study to make a decision on bears and cats.
Thursday was the day they spoke about the elk draw system, they were speaking with a bio, and they made the statement that they may look into limiting elk hunting to draw system. The bio replied that he is not aware of any Washington herds where that is a consideration for management, but they replied that they still wanted to have that as a consideration. It was following a conversation about avian flu concerns.
Post by: James on August 30, 2023, 12:09:33 PM
Can someone tell me where in the meeting they proposed to make elk hunting in wa draw only?
I caught the bear and cougar "decoupling" from other fall season settings, and the bear "Whataboutism" so they can take those from us, but I missed the elk discussion.
Thank you
It was day three in the meetings (Saturday). They were talking with their lead bio about the game management plan and reg setting for the next three years. He replied that they would not have the studies done in time for their decisions in October to which several of the commissioners (Rowland and Smith) stated they didn't need the study to make a decision on bears and cats.
Thursday was the day they spoke about the elk draw system, they were speaking with a bio, and they made the statement that they may look into limiting elk hunting to draw system. The bio replied that he is not aware of any Washington herds where that is a consideration for management, but they replied that they still wanted to have that as a consideration. It was following a conversation about avian flu concerns.
Thank you, just listened to it >:(
The reassurance that they "may not" look into making blacktail deer draw only was not comforting at all.
Post by: hunter399 on August 30, 2023, 03:42:13 PM
Most likely the whole state will be draw hunting for big game at some point.
Easy way to raise profits,with less opportunities.
Just saying,It's been talked about for years and years.
Post by: Scruffy on August 31, 2023, 01:36:17 AM
Post by: highcountry_hunter on August 31, 2023, 03:45:54 AM
My question is, why are non residents of Washington allowed to comment on our hunting rules and seasons? Non residents hunters just need to abide by the seasons the WDFW set, they shouldn't have a say just as when we go to their state. But it's not out of state hunters I am concerned about. It is the Non resident ANTI hunting people, why are they allowed to have a say in what goes on here. It should be for residents only and a person should have to register showing residency before being allowed to comment at the meetings. We would still be outnumbered but it would be a lot closer playing field if it were only residents.Agreed, but I don’t know how they’d regulate this especially when it it comes to the zoom meetings. The idea of having to have a Washington state identification sounds grand but the government moves slowly, it would cost them time and money to come up with something like that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: buckfvr on August 31, 2023, 08:10:39 AM
Post by: mcrawfordaf on August 31, 2023, 08:32:55 AM
They (opposing orgs) solicit out of state support for their agendas and encourage comments much in the same manner as the e-mails you get about gun regs from other states that need "your" support.
Thankfully organizations like HOWL are leveling the playing field by doing the same. Enough so that HOWL was brought up several times by the antis. So, it's working.