Hunting Washington Forum

Community => Advocacy, Agencies, Access => Topic started by: Moose Master on May 10, 2025, 07:51:27 AM

Title: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: Moose Master on May 10, 2025, 07:51:27 AM: https://sourcenm.com/2025/05/09/as-states-rethink-wildlife-management-new-mexico-offers-a-new-model/

Similar budget problem and good old boy system that needs changed to accomplish a better wildlife system.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: dwils233 on May 10, 2025, 08:09:36 AM: The article is kind of misleading- New Mexico isn't on the bleeding edge of wildlife management now, they just aren't at the back either.

Plenty of states have statutory authority for non-game wildlife. Plenty of states have diversified funding. Washington has both. That's why WWF and their extremists allies are so infuriating- they act like we're stuck in the past, when even hunters and anglers often have supported the agency updating over the last few years- but it's never fast or extreme enough for the crazies.

New Mexico needed this, no doubt. But they also made a deal with the Devil by collaborating with wildlife for all...time will tell if wildlife for all comes for the same people who helped them get what they wanted down there
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 10, 2025, 09:21:23 AM: They can concentrate on their animals and a handful of fish since not dealing with sharing of dwindling saltwater fish between states, countries, tribes and commercials.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 10, 2025, 01:29:06 PM: The mistake that NM and many other liberal states has made is not strictly adhering to the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. It's been the most successful model anywhere in the world, in fact, the envy of the world. Unfortunately, wildlife extremists have been allowed to disrupt the balance of the model by tying the hands of game management everywhere they can. The most obvious local result of this has been a predator spiral to the detriment of ungulate and small game populations. Once the wolves get into the pygmy rabbit habitat - extinction, just like the US population of woodland caribou and the vastly decreased E. WA deer herds. NM is delusional if they think that further influence by environmental extremists will help restore balance.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: dwils233 on May 10, 2025, 02:09:28 PM: The NA conservation model is amazing and hugely successful, but it's not perfect. It was hugely reliant on consumptive users for funding, even as those revenues were quickly outpaced by needs. It also fails to appropriately recognize that species need functional ecosystem to survive, just as much as direct, species specific attention. It also pretty much guaranteed that non-game species would never get the attention they need.

What the NA model needs to is evolve, grow, update, etc. That's what things like RAWA, biodiversity funding, wildlife diversity grants, wildlife action plans, and connectivity work are supposed to address. The NA model can absolutely be improved to benefit wildlife, something hunters as conservationists, should support.i think that's what NM was generally trying to do.

Where it goes off the rails, is when folks want to reject the model wholesale and replace it with an unproven, emotional theory. A paradigm shift, instead of iterative improvement. Which is exactly what wildlife for all and WWF want, and why they are so dangerous to platform or acknowledge, much less work with (in the case of NM)
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: hughjorgan on May 10, 2025, 03:25:27 PM: I think this is all part of the antis strategy to get their foot in the door of game agencies. Combining and making agencies all encompassing is a bad idea. There is no funding mechanism that accompany the added burden of now managing the non consumptive side but it takes money from the game side of management which is detrimental to managing our game species. It also gives the antis a say of how our game is managed which is a terrible idea.

They should create a separate agency that specifically addresses the conservation of these non consumptive species and a funding mechanism paid for by non consumptive users like bird watchers, hikers and backpackers. Or even put a tax on these groups like Washington wildlife first, the center for biological diversity etc. to pay for all this that they are constantly trying to litigate the FWS OR DEPT of Game across America. Every time they litigate because they don’t like what is going on takes from conservation efforts by draining the coffers.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: Humptulips on May 10, 2025, 06:28:46 PM: Things are not good in New Mexico. They recently outlawed all trapping on Public lands which is most of the State. I believe that the inclusion of non-game species in F&Gs mandate is the downfall of good F&G management. It makes a place for a lot of spending for non-game which brings in State funding which gives these anti-consumptive use organizations their reason for getting their voice heard.
I believe Sportsman could pay their way and legitimately demand a real say in game management. We can never do that as long as there is tax money mixed in. If studies on bumble bees and snowy plovers is necessary, let the money be kept separate.
I do remember when the first General Funds money went into F&G and it has been downhill ever since.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: TriggerMike on May 10, 2025, 08:50:58 PM: The antis have their sights set on NM now. They conquered California and have been chipping away at WA and CO for the last several years. WA didn't give them the results they expected by now and they're shifting course to the next Lib state. I think the tide has turned in WA in our favor and the antis didn't see the power of Tribal influence against their plan coming in as hot as it did. We need to stay vigilant but I don't know if we're ground zero for the anti's battle anymore.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: Moose Master on May 11, 2025, 07:34:59 AM: Quote from: Humptulips on May 10, 2025, 06:28:46 PM
Things are not good in New Mexico. They recently outlawed all trapping on Public lands which is most of the State. I believe that the inclusion of non-game species in F&Gs mandate is the downfall of good F&G management. It makes a place for a lot of spending for non-game which brings in State funding which gives these anti-consumptive use organizations their reason for getting their voice heard.
I believe Sportsman could pay their way and legitimately demand a real say in game management. We can never do that as long as there is tax money mixed in. If studies on bumble bees and snowy plovers is necessary, let the money be kept separate.
I do remember when the first General Funds money went into F&G and it has been downhill ever since.

I posted and article about Funding in the thread about 38% increase of licensing. You are welcome to check it out and see any relationship about sportsman paying to gain more control over the game commission. We are running thin on our portion.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: nwwanderer on May 11, 2025, 08:59:05 AM: I do not think we are running thin, I think the spending decisions are thick. Wolf budget for an example.
Title: Re: A look at different state concept for Wildlife
Post by: hughjorgan on May 11, 2025, 09:06:36 AM: I posted this over in the increased license fee thread as well…

The antis narrative is complete BS!

The Game Division’s biennial budget is approximately $11 million, sourced from various state and federal funds .

In total, the WDFW’s Wildlife Program has an estimated biennial budget of $75.6 million, with actual expenditures totaling $68.6 million in the 2023–25 biennium .

Therefore, the cost to manage game species at WDFW is approximately $75.6 million over two years, supporting a workforce of about 327 FTEs dedicated to wildlife management and conservation efforts.

The majority of WDFWs budget goes to paying its staff.

In licenses sold alone we generated 41.5 million in revenue and it only takes 38 million per year to operate the game division of WDFW. We also have an additional 8.3 million from PR Funds! So the newest operating budget for the ENTIRE WDFW is 823 million this bienium. Hunters are and can pay our way!