Post by: Dave Workman on September 13, 2009, 05:44:31 PM
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/6420ap_wa_fish_and_wildlife.html
Westport man chosen to lead WA Fish and Wildlife
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Former Westport charter boat skipper Phil Anderson has been chosen to head Washington's Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Anderson, who has been interim director for more than nine months, will oversee a department with about 1,380 employees and a two-year budget of more than $350 million. The state Fish and Wildlife Commission voted Saturday to select Anderson, following a nationwide search to replace Jeff Koenings, who resigned as department director in December.
Commissioners are recommending Anderson be paid $141,000 a year.
A 15-year veteran of the department, Anderson told The Olympian newspaper that he wants to enhance hunting, fishing and wildlife watching opportunities in the state and to continue making sure the agency uses sound business practices.
Post by: bobcat on September 13, 2009, 06:39:45 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on September 13, 2009, 06:51:22 PM
Post by: runamuk on September 13, 2009, 06:58:21 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on September 13, 2009, 07:47:32 PM
Figured that might happen, although early on I thought I read where the Commission told him he would not be considered....might be mistaken though.
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2009, 01:32:23 AM
I'll reserve judgement, but my gut instinct makes me wonder if much will change at all. His selection by the previous director to be his assistant and being part of that overall administration concerns me somewhat. Lets see if he makes some major changes in some of the positions under him. If not....expect nothing to change in my opinion. What WDFW needs is a shake up with new direction from new people who manage programs there. Hopefully he won't be as arrogant as the last one....that will be a start.
Figured that might happen, although early on I thought I read where the Commission told him he would not be considered....might be mistaken though.
:yeah: I have the same instincts on this, however, let's cross our fingers that he will now step out of the shell since he is now the man in charge. :dunno:
The fact that he had a fishing business that depended on sportsmens dollars is a plus. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2009, 02:39:21 AM
I can remember being introduced to former Director Smitch at a dinner, he would not shake my hand and turned and walked away. That is wen I knew I was making a difference that he didn't like.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
I didn't get to meet Anderson, but my impression was that he is most likely a decent guy trying to do what he thinks is a good job.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 14, 2009, 07:51:10 AM
I'll reserve judgement, but my gut instinct makes me wonder if much will change at all. His selection by the previous director to be his assistant and being part of that overall administration concerns me somewhat. Lets see if he makes some major changes in some of the positions under him. If not....expect nothing to change in my opinion. What WDFW needs is a shake up with new direction from new people who manage programs there. Hopefully he won't be as arrogant as the last one....that will be a start.
Figured that might happen, although early on I thought I read where the Commission told him he would not be considered....might be mistaken though.
:yeah: I have the same instincts on this, however, let's cross our fingers that he will now step out of the shell since he is now the man in charge. :dunno:
The fact that he had a fishing business that depended on sportsmens dollars is a plus. :twocents:
Yeah...............I wish him luck. So many times though the first thing the director needs to focus on is direction, and that means changing the mindset of the agency. That mindset resides in the people who actually are in charge of the various programs such as fish management, wildlife management, habitat and so on. Within those programs smaller mindsets exist within programs like big game, steelhead etc. If the guy at the top doesn't have the kahunas to replace people that have run some of those programs in a non effective manner in the past, then he too is ineffective and the status quo remains.
So many times those in charge don't want to rock the boat and do whats necessary. The only director that showed some moxie that way was Bern Shanks back in the 90's and he eventually paid the price from getting undermined by those he replaced or those who didn't like his policies, which I might add were good for the sportsman. The commission at that time sided with those in the agency and used lame excuses to fire him. Too bad, at least he recognized what needed to be done and had started on the path of replacing folks with those who knew how to do it.
Ironically many of those same Bern Shanks haters still reside and occupy high administrative positions in the agency. Some have also retired. Those that remain have expanded their negative mindset by hiring folks just like them to run programs under them. There's an old dog breeder's saying................
"Like begets like", which means by line breeding (related individuals) relatively close, you set both the good and bad traits of those individual animals in the offspring. You can apply that to WDFW. As long as you have some people in power positions making policy that really doesn't serve hunting or fishing interests, then that policy perpetuates itself. That's what has happened over the past 25 years, with some minor exceptions.... Shanks for one.
Just think we need a new dog in the hunt....just hope Anderson fits that need. It won't take long to tell. I wish him luck.
Post by: bearpaw on September 14, 2009, 09:51:57 AM
Post by: Skyhigh on September 14, 2009, 04:44:27 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on September 15, 2009, 10:12:05 PM
The acid test will be whether Anderson immediately replaces some people, either demoting them or encouraging them to retire or encouraging others lower on the food chain to find employment elsewhere.
We do NOT need anymore "watchable wildlife" wonks. Screw that program and that philosophy nd anybody who promotes it. What revenue does it generate? How does it benefit the health of the herd? How does it benefit hunters? Does it provide them more time in the field, more opportunity, more game in the bag? What?
We need better general hunting seasons for elk and deer, move them later or extend them with more time in the field (preferably a combination of the two).
No general rifle elk season in this state should begin before Nov.. 1 or end before Nov. 15. This, IMHO, should be non-negotiable.
General buck seasons should run for at least two full weeks and three full weekends, and that includes mule deer, with an end to the general 3-point or better rule except in specific "quality" zones, perhaps the Alta unit and Chiwawa, or perhaps not. This MUST begin in 2010, and IMHO sportsmen should also make this a non-negotiable item.
The general whitetail season needs to be restored to six full weeks with seven full weekends. IMMEDIATELY.
Funds spent on non-game programs - specifically "watchable wildlife" should be re-directed to wild turkey enhancement statewide and revival of pheasant enhancement programs in eastern Washington.
Last and certainly not least, this state should ...make that MUST ... abolish "Resource allocation" as all it has really done is reduce opportunity overall, drive more than 100,000 hunters away from the tradition, at least in this state, resulting in a requirement for more expensive licenses and tags for remaining hunters.
Whaddaya think, "Wacenturion," that a pretty good start?? :chuckle:
================
>:(
Hey, once I get cranked up,, I really get cranked up. If I were still writing blistering editorials at the old F&H News, this would be in print in the next issue!
Post by: bobcat on September 15, 2009, 10:25:52 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2009, 04:58:24 AM
I also get Colorado hunters who come hunting mule deer in Idaho and Montana with me because they can't draw mule deer in Colorado.
So, I would be very cautious about recommending a statewide draw. :twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2009, 05:09:07 AM
I totally agree with you on resource allocation. It is counter productive for bringing hunters into the sports. I think it got started by greedy traditionalists who want to keep their sport to themselves..... :twocents:
One year in Idaho they abolished modern projectiles all together for muzzleloader hunting, we couldn't hardly kill deer with round balls, many got away, some we finished off by knifing them, one of my hunters quit hunting after wounding 4 bucks, he couldn't stand the thought of wounding another buck. Wasn't his fault, it was just a poor law.
I am glad to see that we can use jacketed bullets again in WA. That should result in cleaner kills. :twocents:
Post by: singleshot12 on September 16, 2009, 05:52:49 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on September 16, 2009, 08:32:45 AM
Dave I could feel your enthusiasm rising, or should I say your blood pressure (lol), as I read your reply. First, for all of you who don't know, Dave has been an effective advocate for you, the sportsman, for as long as I have known him, and in fact even before I first met him. That takes in quite a few years to say the least. He has from time to time taken his fair share of undeserved negative hits, both from WDFW and some sportsmen. We can all be thankful for what he does for us. Keep on top of things Dave, we all appreciate it.
Resource allocation, that's the big one. It had a devastating effect on opportunity. Think about it....even back when you could buy an archery/muzzle stamp for $5 and use it in conjunction with you rifle tag, you could still only kill one animal that that tag or stamp was specific for. You just had more choices and could expand or lengthen your season. Only down side was the potential to also expand pressure. Pressure though is pressure, whether is spread out or compressed. The real issue is hunter numbers at a given time. Then again common sense tells us that just like only being able to kill one animal during the year, individuals can only take off so much time during that same year. Again pressure becomes somewhat self limiting.
What WDFW doesn't see is the larger picture, that being that every additional bit of opportunity a sportsman has and uses, the larger the beneficial effect it has on the state economy. More sales of goods and services. Conversely, reducing opportunity has the reverse effect. For those of you that have hunted turkeys in and around Colville in the spring....just remove turkeys completely from the landscape up there and imagine the impact to the community and that area. I use that example to validate my point.
Thirty plus years ago, when I lived just out of Ephrata and up on a hillside. the view the night before general hunting season in eastern Washington was spectacular. It looked like a major invasion from the visual of hundreds to thousands of headlights on the freeways and roads after dark. People heading over from all direction....deer hunters, duck hunters, uplands bird hunters all. Before I left that area in the 80's that had subsided. I'll wager that today that same view would be much less impressive. A result of restricted opportunity, spreading the remaining opportunity and just as important, the lack of WDFW doing what was needed to be done management wise for consumptive species and users over the past few decades.....with a few exceptions.
:twocents:
Post by: gunnarnewt on September 16, 2009, 11:40:28 AM
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2009, 02:27:41 PM
As a father and now grandfather, I would also not like to see it, because it would be hard to keep people in the sport if they only get to go deer and elk hunting every fifth or sixth year. I think our kids need to be able to go hunting every year.
Post by: MtnMuley on September 16, 2009, 04:28:07 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 16, 2009, 04:43:24 PM
I agree. I doubt we will ever see a draw system, but I'd be all for it. It would be way too much of a revenue loss for the department, but I feel it would up the chance of trophy sized animals. Over-pressure on the larger bucks in the rut has dwindled a big percentage of our larger bucks. From the late rifle tags to the late bow season. Then throw in a couple bad winters, and there goes the population even more. :twocents:
That's exactly where we are at here in NE WA.
I think the answer is to have an organized push for more trophy managed units but keep the rest of the state with over the counter tags. Trying to encourage the best of both worlds.
Post by: MtnMuley on September 17, 2009, 07:50:57 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2009, 08:40:45 AM
As a father and now grandfather, I would also not like to see it, because it would be hard to keep people in the sport if they only get to go deer and elk hunting every fifth or sixth year. I think our kids need to be able to go hunting every year.
People could still hunt every year. Chances are, a person could draw a deer or an elk tag every year, but if not, there is always ducks, pheasants, grouse, coyotes, bear, cougar, chukar, turkey, rabbits, crows, quail, and probably more that I didn't think of. I don't see there being any lack of hunting opportunity if deer and elk tags were draw only.
Post by: wolfbait on September 17, 2009, 09:28:11 AM
I agree. I doubt we will ever see a draw system, but I'd be all for it. It would be way too much of a revenue loss for the department, but I feel it would up the chance of trophy sized animals. Over-pressure on the larger bucks in the rut has dwindled a big percentage of our larger bucks. From the late rifle tags to the late bow season. Then throw in a couple bad winters, and there goes the population even more. :twocents:
Add the wolves to your list, and the bad winters don't seem so bad. You are going to find that the wolves will be what will have the most impact on all of your hunting. It doesn't take to long either when you have WDFW releasing wolves on the sly. Do you think they are going to tell you that they put wolves in your backyard? Not.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 17, 2009, 09:35:35 AM
Yep- That's why there is no hunting in WY, MT, and ID this year :rolleyes:I agree. I doubt we will ever see a draw system, but I'd be all for it. It would be way too much of a revenue loss for the department, but I feel it would up the chance of trophy sized animals. Over-pressure on the larger bucks in the rut has dwindled a big percentage of our larger bucks. From the late rifle tags to the late bow season. Then throw in a couple bad winters, and there goes the population even more. :twocents:
Add the wolves to your list, and the bad winters don't seem so bad. You are going to find that the wolves will be what will have the most impact on all of your hunting. It doesn't take to long either when you have WDFW releasing wolves on the sly. Do you think they are going to tell you that they put wolves in your backyard? Not.
Post by: Jekemi on September 17, 2009, 11:39:37 AM
1. spend money on projects that generate revenue and enhance the hunting experience (wildlife watch - what a joke)
2. spend money on youth hunting and expanded youth hunter education - get the youth involved early
3. spend money attracting women to this great sport, hunting and fishing. 50% of the population but only a small % enjoys hunting. We need women involved for the future of hunting
4. spend money enhancing the speices, especially Deer, Turkey, and Pheasants. We have great waterfowl populations.
5. work more closely with the hunting organizations; DU, Grouse Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, etc. Those orgs. working closely with WDFW can only improve the habitat and game populations
6. Finally and most importantly - stress wildlife MANAGEMENT over the so called "natual ecosystem."
Post by: Dave Workman on September 17, 2009, 05:32:06 PM
First, thank you Wacenturion for your kind remarks. You're not so bad yourself! ;)
I guess we begin with bearpaw, mtnmuley, bobcat and gunnarnewt. You want to hunt under a permit system, move to Colorado. ;D
The WDFW would love to go to permits because it would be used as a means to further limit opportunity more than they already do.
bobcat: Your "people could still hunt every year" (for something else) idea doesn't wash for the tens of thousands of people who only hunt deer or elk. They don't want to hunt waterfowl or other game.
One person's idea of "quality" is another person's idea of exclusion; that is, keeping more people out of "your" woods during "your" season. As bearpaw noted, the "resource allocation" model was a brain fart of "greedy traditionalists" who were certainly encouraged and helped by a management philosophy that seemed to want to push people out of the woods. As Wacenturion said, Resource Allocation has been a disaster and has had a "devastating effect on opportunity." That's why I opposed it in the 1980s and why I oppose it today.
I'll never forget the conversation I had some 20 years ago with one of the big game managers in the agency who honest-to-gawd told me that he hoped one day people would think they had a great hunt if they got a chance to see some elk on a distant ridge or something, not necessarily put a bullet in one of them. What a bunch of nonsense!
The horse packers love the earlier elk season because they can pack their paying clients back into the Bob Marshall or Henry M. Jackson or William O. Douglas and make a buck, but that doesn't mean jack squat to the rest of us, who end up with an opportunity to go camping with guns.
The situation with mule deer is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Putting antler restrictions on to improve the herd following a tough winter made sense, but not for the initially suggested ten years and certainly not forever.
Here's what happens with shorter mule deer seasons: The herd gets to build up to a "near-healthy" level and then along comes another bad winter and SURPRISE! you get another winter die off allowing proponents of tight mule deer hunts to go back to the commission weeping into their crying towels and telling the commissioners that we need to maintain the shorter, lower harvest season with the antler restriction to build back the herd. Four or five years later, same thing all over again.
We could easily set aside a couple of units in Chelan and Okanogan and Ferry counties and open up the rest for any buck. After the rut, bucks are pretty much excess baggage, in a biological sense anyway.
Whitetail hunting up Northeast, I've already discussed.
Opening and closing dates... Blacktail and Mule Deer general buck starting no earlier than oct. 15 and ending no earlier than Oct. 31.
Bring back hound hunting for black bear and mountain lion.
Restore pheasant releases in EW in the basin (we used to have hunting that rivaled the Dakotas and we can have that again).
We have 100,000 fewer hunters in this state than we did a generation ago. There is no reason, none, nada, zippo why those people should not have enormous hunting opportunities. Wacenturion recalls the $5 stamp to allow archery hunting (or black powder) outside the general season if you didn't notch a tag. What's wrong with that?
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2009, 07:19:50 PM
I guess we begin with bearpaw, mtnmuley, bobcat and gunnarnewt. You want to hunt under a permit system, move to Colorado. ;D
Dave, I think you misread my position on this. I said trophy animals would be good for my business but I said as a father and grandfather I would not want to see statewide draw permits.
I am on your side of that argument.......with the exception that I thought it wouldn't hurt to have a few more trophy deer hunts.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2009, 07:24:43 PM
That used to be the way it was for everyone, until resource allocation. But if you are willing to pay the big dollars for the license it's OK and even considered great to get to hunt with all weapons......hhhhmmmmmm
Post by: Dave Workman on September 17, 2009, 08:10:13 PM
Your second remark...amigo, I believe you have cracked a code :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2009, 08:22:49 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2009, 09:12:52 PM
If I remember right, resource allocation was all about giving bowhunters more bow time, muzz more muzz time and splitting apart the hunters.
In reality it might be a double edged sword that is limiting exposure of new participants to bow hunting or muzzleloader hunting. I suspect that over generations resource allocation could be very detrimental to primitive hunting methods in our state.
What's the difference if your 20 days or 30 days is split up through 3 different weapon seasons or all in one weapon season. Many people in almost every other state across the nation thinks Washington resource allocation is crazy.
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2009, 09:15:42 PM
Post by: Ray on September 17, 2009, 09:18:45 PM
I prefer the - choose your weapon mode.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2009, 09:34:45 PM
bobcat....to answer your question, there used to be seperate archery seasons, muzzleloader seasons, and rifle seasons just like in Idaho or Montana. You bought an inexpensive permit to hunt with additional weapons.
I liked it that way because I enjoy all types of weapons hunting. Some guys are only bow or muzz, so they like it this way like we have it now.
But now you can buy the multiple season tag and hunt all three if you pay the big dollars. Only difference WDFW is getting more money for that opportunity.
I think wacenturian made a really good statement about the detrimental affects resource allocation has had on hunter numbers in Washington. While a reduction of hunter numbers may seem like a good thing, over the long term it could spell hunting's demise.... :twocents:
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2009, 09:44:40 PM
Also look at the technology in archery and muzzleloader equimpent that has changed so much over the years. Now anybody can go buy a bow and be shooting proficiently within a month. Same with muzzleloaders. The learning curve is much shorter than it used to be, especially with the internet and sites like this. Archery hunters now routinely shoot out to 60 yards and muzzleloaders to 150, even though I wouldn't recommend it. Thirty years ago you never would have heard of such long range shooting being done with both weapon types. I'd guess for archery a long shot would have been 35 yards, and for a muzzleloader a long shot would have been 75 yards. I just don't see any way the deer and elk could take the additional pressure of everybody with a tag hunting all three seasons.
Post by: bearpaw on September 17, 2009, 09:55:04 PM
I knew exactly what you were talking about when a person could hunt all seasons without having to pick just one. I do remember that. I was probably only 10 years old but I remember. I would love it if it was still like that. I've hunted with all three weapon choices and would love the opportunity to be able to hunt all three seasons just like it used to be 30 years ago. But, I don't think we have the numbers of deer and elk that could take that extra pressure. I think we put too much pressure on them now as it is, with general season hunting going on for deer/elk from September 1st to December 31st. That's 4 months straight with maybe only 1 week or maybe two weeks in that time period when there is no general season for big game.
Yes I agree we can not afford to over hunt any more than we are. But I think the animals are being hunted over a longer period now than before. They lenghtened archery seasons with resource allocation.
This isn't a huge thorn in my side, I just liked it a little better when I could use all three weapons. It kind of erks me that you can still do it if you pay the price....From a hunter recruitment standpoint it also seems to be worse.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 17, 2009, 10:19:11 PM
The key here is as I stated before....pressure is somewhat self limiting. Just like you can harvest only one deer, an individual can only take so much time off. If all hunters were retired like me I would agree with you, but they are not. Being able to hunt like we did before resource allocation is a good thing. Will we have more hunters....hopefully. Will there be some conflicts and problems...probably....there always has been and there always will be.
Maybe I'm missing something here or it's just my hunting experiences, but I would rather go back to the way it was and choose what, when and where I want to hunt....and not be directed by some manipulated WDFW system that limits my opportunity. I had a better chance at branched antlered bulls back then than now. At least I could hunt them. Now I may never get drawn. Don't seem to remember the harvest being devoid of some nice bulls every year. They...the elk managed just fine with more hunters. Now I put in every year for an eastern bull unit, because if I get drawn that's the hunt I want. Problem is I live on the west side so I can't elk hunt over here during the general season after not pulling a permit. Stupid....the state and businesses are loosing revenue from me and every other hunter out there, but WDFW could give a crap. They are near sighted and only look at the direct benefits to them.
Post by: bobcat on September 17, 2009, 10:26:23 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on September 17, 2009, 10:38:47 PM
"I really would like it if they could allow everyone to hunt all the seasons, if it could be done without hurting our deer/elk populations. Somehow I think my wife might not be a fan of it though!"
See I told you pressure is somewhat self limiting...........a whole lot of wives feel that way........lol. :chuckle:
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 04:41:11 AM
If you don't like "resource allocation" what's the alternative? Only alternative I see would be to do away with the general archery and muzzleloader seasons and just combine everything into one. So that if you want to hunt with a bow or muzzleloader you would have to do it when everybody else is hunting with a rifle. We've got too many people and not enough game to have every season open to everybody.
NO. That's not what we're talking about. At least not what I am talking about.
Three separate season opportunities, or split it up like early and late bow and ML seasons. HOWEVER, a person can buy a general tag and hunt the general hunt, and then for a small fee, get an archery stamp and/OR an ML stamp and hunt those seasons as well.
So long as you can ONLY take one animal a calendar season, tht opens up vast opportunities. Not everyone is going to hunt the alternate seasons. A whole lot of people don't shoot bows or muzzle loaders, but they do hunt with an 06 and they deserve at least two full weeks with three full weekends to do it. If they want to hunt an early or late primitive season, welcome aboard.
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 04:46:37 AM
Yeah everyone just get's a tag and shows up to hunt in the forest on the same day. Total chaos.
I prefer the - choose your weapon mode.
Oh that's nonsense, and I think you know it,, Ray.
Read my other posts on this subject. I have always advocated separate ML, archery and modern weapon seasons. What I have advocated, and what Wacenturion has explained, is that,, FOR AN ADDITIONAL STAMP FEE, a modern guy could go afield during one of those alternate seasons and hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader.
There is time on the calendar to do this. Do archery and ML early hunts (break up the units or however you want to do it) starting in mid- to late September running to a weekend that is one full week prior to the general opener for deer. then run your modern rifle deer and elk hunts consecutively, and then run your late primitive seasons in late November, being careful to avoid conflicts with the late modern rifle buck hunts.
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 07:31:54 AM
Post by: bobcat on September 18, 2009, 07:38:03 AM
Or, any deer or elk modern firearm season, you'd have thousands of hunters who previously only hunted archery or muzzleloader seasons out there with a rifle.
Just as Ray said, it would be total chaos.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 18, 2009, 08:20:07 AM
Being able to hunt outside of their preferred choice allows flexibility to expand their opportunity.....but only if they have not taken an animal yet or have the time and resources to do so. So applying the above to deer.........we now add say elk.....then we add bear, waterfowl, upland birds, and the rest of the mix into the equation for the hunting public. People just don't have the time to be out there for everything as some would assume.
There is also the law of the fagged out hunter. No this doesn't mean what you might think. Has nothing to do with hunting on Brokeback Mountain. This is a statement I heard years ago, when fagged out meant tired of it all, to hard to get something, etc. Occurs as the season progresses. The example used back then was on pheasants. Late in the season, fewer birds, didn't hold...ran, cold, harder to be successful. Hunter numbers dropped and they choose to stay home where they could watch TV in front of a warm fire. That principal also applies to our discussion. You have to factor that in. Just food for thought.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 18, 2009, 09:03:22 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on September 18, 2009, 09:16:52 AM
I'm not sure th herds could handle that much pressure for that amount of time. They get pushed pretty hard already. If I remember correctly Washington only has 58k elk...we don't need more harvest, we need more habitat and more elk... the higher harvest would follow. I would like to see more emphasis on habitat improvements- i.e water developments, weed control, proper timber managment, controlled burns, winter range protection...we could have more animals, but it would take work and $.
Could not agree more with on the habitat enhancement issues. Unfortunately WDFW game and habitat management for the most part is paper management. There are on the ground efforts, but not nearly as focused as they should be for all species. Also as I mentioned earlier....it's not a centralized uniform approach as far as the few things that do happen for an say elk. They are done on an individual/regional basis. Just take a look at the waste of money spent by WDFW on "habitat management" on the St. Helen's area as an example. Again.............way too many chiefs in WDFW drawing big salaries sitting in offices rather than having enough field folks with the right equipement to make a real difference on the ground for wildlife. Fact!
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2009, 12:31:45 PM
I'm not sure th herds could handle that much pressure for that amount of time. They get pushed pretty hard already. If I remember correctly Washington only has 58k elk...we don't need more harvest, we need more habitat and more elk... the higher harvest would follow. I would like to see more emphasis on habitat improvements- i.e water developments, weed control, proper timber managment, controlled burns, winter range protection...we could have more animals, but it would take work and $.
these are some good points that need to be looked at more closely.....
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 12:54:42 PM
What's nonsense?
This:
Quote
Yeah everyone just get's a tag and shows up to hunt in the forest on the same day. Total chaos.
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 01:04:35 PM
The archery season for elk can be competitive in many places. I'd rather not see another 4 thousand archers in September hunting elk. That isn't nonsense it's certainly a possibility.
Post by: wolfbait on September 18, 2009, 01:05:25 PM
I'm not sure th herds could handle that much pressure for that amount of time. They get pushed pretty hard already. If I remember correctly Washington only has 58k elk...we don't need more harvest, we need more habitat and more elk... the higher harvest would follow. I would like to see more emphasis on habitat improvements- i.e water developments, weed control, proper timber managment, controlled burns, winter range protection...we could have more animals, but it would take work and $.
Hmmm, Winter range protection, plan on putting up some wolf fencing. :rolleyes: More elk you say,,but what about the wolves??? :rolleyes: Gee whiz, what a great idea, thats what we can do we will just fence them damn wolves out. :chuckle: :chuckle: WDFW don't give a rats ass about the game, they don't have enough time, they are to bizzy count their money from multiple hunting seasons. Trying to figure out just how many differant deer seasons that we have here in the Okanogan, I think we have 6 differant seasons on deer here in the Methow Valley. Don't really matter at this point as the deer are on their way out, do to the wolves....
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 01:20:18 PM
I'm not sure th herds could handle that much pressure for that amount of time. They get pushed pretty hard already. If I remember correctly Washington only has 58k elk...we don't need more harvest, we need more habitat and more elk... the higher harvest would follow. I would like to see more emphasis on habitat improvements- i.e water developments, weed control, proper timber managment, controlled burns, winter range protection...we could have more animals, but it would take work and $.
Your first sentence reads like something out of the "WDFW Limited Opportunity" handbook.
We have been hearing that since resource allocation was imposed 20 years ago and when we had 100,000 MORE hunters than we do today. So,the animals, by the very nature of the reduction in hunter numbers, are getting pushed less.
Washington has an estimated 58,000-60,000 elk and we definitely could have more elk because we have the habitat. We have enormous tracts of public land in this state, wilderness areas, national forests, state landsand even private timberlands.
Likewise, we could have more deer. Do you know that in Ohio, which is 20,000 square miles smaller than Washington and has a pitiful amount of public land in comparison, ...yeah, that Ohio... they kill upwards of 90,000 deer in a hunting season back there that runs 7-9 days and they don't allow rifles, only shotguns, ML or archery.
They have only ONE deer species, and we have three.
WTF??
Ever since I was a kid in this state, some bonehead has been telling me that I must learn to "get along with less"and make the most of shrinking opportunities. What a disastrous,defeatist attitude, a self-fulfilling prophecy more or less.
It doesn't wash. It doesn't pass the smell test.
We've reduced hunter numbers by 100,000 since the 1980s, and yet the seasons for the remaining hunters are still shrinking, a day here, a day there, when by all rights and simple math they should be expanding. Now the state has come up with this "Master Hunter" program and those with a Master hunter certificate get acrack at some additional opportunities. Gents, that translates to state-imposed elitism. It is just one more manifestation of a problem we face and most of you don't even realize it.
By setting up Resource Allocation and tossing the Master Hunter special opportunity in there, the state is pitting one user group against another so that we are constantly at each other's throats instead of every sportsmen working together to hold thesed people accountable. It's a great way to avoid actually doing something for hunters in this state, because the state can say that "those hunterws can't even agree on what to do." Damn right. It's by design.
What do you think, Wacenturion? That about cover it?
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 01:29:19 PM
Whatever. THe multiseason draw took in 4000 or so applicants (for deer and elk each) and gave out what 1500 or so for deer and 500 for elk? You can fudge the numbers a lot of ways but the normal choose your tag system is certainly spreading hunters out across opening days. It doesn't account for would be over the counter tag buyers under the proposal/system described by you above, which would certainly be higher than 4000.
The archery season for elk can be competitive in many places. I'd rather not see another 4 thousand archers in September hunting elk. That isn't nonsense it's certainly a possibility.
You are mixing apples and oranges.
I'm talking about general archery, ML and modern weapon seasons, and you are, at least up front, talking about permits for designated seasons or opportunities.
Now,this is going to sound awful and provocative, and it's not meant that way, but if 4,000 more people want to try their hand at bowhunting, it's not your call, nor mine, to suggest they can't because we may not want them out there. They'd have just as much right to be out there as you or me.
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 01:32:31 PM
How exactly have I mixed apples and oranges any more than you have? You suggest a system is better when you can buy any tag over the counter and just go hunting. I am talking about a limited system which is in place that is somewhat similar in nature except you have to draw the tag and pay more money. I have never mentioned anything about special permits other than the special permit to get a multi season opportunity/tag.
Post by: dbllunger on September 18, 2009, 01:43:07 PM
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2009, 02:11:33 PM
I was very impressed with Anderson and his broad range of knowlege on real world hunting and fishing. This guy actaully knows hunting and fishing and is just not some administrator who has a certificate. I told him the other day I hoped they slected him as we need a director who really understands the on ground issues. Talked to a few other game guys and he worked his way up starting at the bottom. Exactly what we needed lets just hope he sticks around and can do well in the current budget crisis our sweet goverment created.
That sounds good, I hope he can improve things.... :tup:
Post by: Dave Workman on September 18, 2009, 04:43:13 PM
I don't think there is anything wrong with newer archers coming into the archery season. The suggestion and more specifically the numbers you pose are not based on real facts
What numbers are you talking about?
Post by: Ray on September 18, 2009, 05:05:23 PM
Quote
but if 4,000 more people want to try their hand at bowhunting, it's not your call, nor mine, to suggest they can't because we may not want them out there
I would never dispute the quote above.
The point is - I think that dividing the user groups (whether you want to take that into a conspiracy level or not) does play a role in limiting the number of hunter traveling out in the woods at a given time. I think that is what I have spoken to. More importantly - I do not feel as if we should have all the entire population of elk hunters looking for elk for 3-4 months straight. That's just one example.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 18, 2009, 05:24:23 PM
I was very impressed with Anderson and his broad range of knowlege on real world hunting and fishing. This guy actaully knows hunting and fishing and is just not some administrator who has a certificate. I told him the other day I hoped they slected him as we need a director who really understands the on ground issues. Talked to a few other game guys and he worked his way up starting at the bottom. Exactly what we needed lets just hope he sticks around and can do well in the current budget crisis our sweet goverment created.
I wish the new director well also..............but can you tell me what you meant about him starting at the bottom and working his way up. Hows does being selected from outside the agency by the previous director a few years ago to be his assistant fit that description? He certainly didn't start at the bottom of WDFW or the separate agencies before merger. In reality I doubt he would qualify for this job anywhere else in this county, as he does not have the qualifications. Not trying to badmouth him, just stating fact. He was in an interim position after the other guy was fired which allowed him to be considered.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on September 18, 2009, 05:30:32 PM
Oh...ok then. Habitat protection/enhancement is not a viable solution. Wolves must have killed all the deer...not two consecutive harsh winters. Give me a break.... :PI'm not sure th herds could handle that much pressure for that amount of time. They get pushed pretty hard already. If I remember correctly Washington only has 58k elk...we don't need more harvest, we need more habitat and more elk... the higher harvest would follow. I would like to see more emphasis on habitat improvements- i.e water developments, weed control, proper timber managment, controlled burns, winter range protection...we could have more animals, but it would take work and $.Hmmm, Winter range protection, plan on putting up some wolf fencing. :rolleyes: More elk you say,,but what about the wolves??? :rolleyes: Gee whiz, what a great idea, thats what we can do we will just fence them damn wolves out. :chuckle: :chuckle: WDFW don't give a rats ass about the game, they don't have enough time, they are to bizzy count their money from multiple hunting seasons. Trying to figure out just how many differant deer seasons that we have here in the Okanogan, I think we have 6 differant seasons on deer here in the Methow Valley. Don't really matter at this point as the deer are on their way out, do to the wolves....
The only real option we have is to enhance the big game herds. The only real way to do that is through habitat and hunter management. Deer/elk cannot live in a knapweed pasture, nor can they live on a parking lot...
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2009, 05:59:37 PM
-Spray Some Weeds For Better Habitat
-Harvest A Few Coyotes
-Carefully Set Hunting Seasons
-Get Lucky With A Few Mild Winters
-Get A Good Wolf Plan That Will Control The Wolf Population
5 little points to satisfy everyone a little bit and problem solved....wish I would of thought of that before.... :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
sorry, just being a smart....:ass:
Post by: bearpaw on September 18, 2009, 06:01:38 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on September 20, 2009, 08:15:38 AM
The point is - I think that dividing the user groups (whether you want to take that into a conspiracy level or not) does play a role in limiting the number of hunter traveling out in the woods at a given time. I think that is what I have spoken to. More importantly - I do not feel as if we should have all the entire population of elk hunters looking for elk for 3-4 months straight. That's just one example.
Ray:
The point Wacenturion and I have been trying to make is that they *won't* all be out there 3-4 months a year. Given the history of hunters, it is likely...and that's iffy...that maybe 10-12% of the guys who hunt modern rifle will cross over and get a supplemental primitive weapons permit. The rest will retire to the easy chair in late November, early December to watch NFL and college football.
But this would provide the additional opportunity to those who DO wish to hunt the early and late primitive weapons seasons if they don't notch a tag during the general hunting season. This may be a shock to some people, but not every male who owns guns is also a football fan. I rather dislike football, frankly and would much rather be sharing a campfire.
Your point that resource allocation "plays a role in limiting the number of hunters" is spot on to a degree I don't think you realize. It has REDUCED the number of hunters statewide over the past few decades. Figures on license sales from the states, posted on line by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, tell that tale.
In 1975, there were more than 346,000 hunters in this state. That number had dropped to 259,176 in 1985. In 2006, according to the data, this state fielded 187,000 hunters.
Post by: Curly on September 21, 2009, 10:12:19 AM
With the limitted amount of area to hunt, there is overcrowding. It ruins the experience when too many hunters are concentrated into a few areas. Can you imagine if there were 346,000 hunters out there today. :yike:
Post by: Dave Workman on September 21, 2009, 08:40:31 PM
Dave, what do you think the reason is for fewer numbers of hunters? I think it mostly has to do with the limitted amount of areas we have avialable to hunt. A lot of places are leased up now, or just simply closed to access.
With the limitted amount of area to hunt, there is overcrowding. It ruins the experience when too many hunters are concentrated into a few areas. Can you imagine if there were 346,000 hunters out there today. :yike:
What "limited amount of area" are you talking about? In Washington? Does anybody know how many thousands of square miles we have that is public land? We have, what, seven national forests? That many wilderness areas (limited access for sure, but it's still public land), WDFW lands including all that land on the Colockum, out in the basin, in western Washington, ad infinitum.
There is a massive NWR over south of the Potholes.
The fact is, we have TONS of public land that could be utilized for great GAME habitat. It just isn't. And that's the problem.
Ask Wacenturion about the wild turkey program, probably the last genuine game enhancement program this state entertained. it was wildly successful, with turkeys all over the place.
Why don't we still do that with pheasants in the basin? When I was a kid, we had ringneck hunting out there that rivaled the Dakotas, and even Kansas and Nebraska.
We have all of this habitat and yet we can't seem to grow 50,000 more deer or 10,000 more elk. Why not?
Actually, we can but we seem to have done it in the wrong places lately. Out in the Snoqualmie Valley we seem to be overrun with elk, but they are in places where people can't really hunt them instead of up the Middle Fork and South Fork and up the North Fork where they COULD be hunted. All it would take is a little archery and ML pressure down on the valley floor to push those animals back into the wilds.
Mt. St. Helens is another example. We have had problems of elk starvation down there because of limited access to hunt that herd. WTF? Those animals benefit nobody by starving. The greenies that pander crap about "Oh, the coyotes and magpies and all the other predators and scavengers have to eat, too" make me sick. They don't contribute a dime to GAME management in this state and yet they get a pretty big voice in how it is managed.
Want to benefit elk? Plant wild wheat and other really edible stuff out in the wilds, especially after a forest fire. Let it root and help hold the soil, and the wildlife will benefit.
We could turn loose pheasant hens on the basin in the spring right before mating season. Get some roosters out there, let them bring off clutches in the wild. The game managers will balk at this and argue that coyotes will get them all. If that's a concern, put a bounty back on coyotes and kill the hell out of them, or make them a predator for which no license is required and there is no bag limit. Encourage hunters to shoot every one of them we see. Cut down predators, cut down predation. Revive the GAME populations, and other non-game populations will benefit as well.
There are all kinds of things we can do to enhance GAME populations on public land. We're just not doing it.
Maybe we need a lot of retirements in Olympia.
Post by: Wacenturion on September 21, 2009, 10:00:43 PM
"Since 1939, state leaders have sought to preserve habitat for fish and wildlife by acquiring key areas for public ownership. Today, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) owns or manages nearly a million acres of land divided into 32 designated Wildlife Areas across the state. More than 150 Water Access Sites owned or maintained by WDFW provide boating access to lakes, rivers and marine areas in or near state Wildlife Areas."
Nearly a million acres in just WDFW owned or controlled wildlife areas, on top of everything Dave mentioned above. We have no lack of available lands to hunt on in this state. WDFW's Upland Wildlife Restoration Program used to also have almost 3 1/2 million acres of private ground signed under Feel Free To Hunt, Hunt By Written Permission, or Regulated hunting statewide during the 90's with 21 staff working in the program statewide. WDFW has since screwed up that program and now staff levels are down to six I believe. Even when they have one of the nations best programs WDFW would rather not work that hard on anything. When the powers to be got control, they took down the program. A number of folks at WDFW were threatened by all that program accomplished. Made those meeting going, we have no money to do anything crowd nervous.
By the way, that program gave you the wild turkey program we have today. Ironically it also ended when those idiots got control.......turkey releases ceased to happen. Agree Dave.....but not retirements (takes too long)...........Anderson needs to demote some of those people and replace them. Doubt you will see that though.
Post by: Dave Workman on September 22, 2009, 04:30:00 AM
What we need are a lot of demotions or outright dismissals. A thorough house cleaning.
There needs to be a performance audit (independent).
No more "game managers" who tell me that, ideally, people would think they had a great hunt if they got to see some elk going over a ridge. What kind of nonsense is that?
A great hunt is taking one of those elk home to dinner. ;)
Yes, they ended the turkey program, and in spite of that, turkeys continue to thrive.
I'm seeing a lot more grouse this year. They are allowed to sort of "do their own thing."
Does it strike anybody as more than "curious" that game species the WDFW doesn't seem to manage get along just fine on their own? :rolleyes:
Post by: colockumelk on October 05, 2009, 06:46:13 PM
We have a ton of good public land that isn't used. Just like Dave said. It pisses me off. We have some awsome habitat that doesn't get used. The reason that we only have 58,000 elk instead of 78,000 elk is because the WDFW wont let them expand. They say that the Yakima are can only sustain 12,000 elk. I call BS. Right now there's a ton of green grass that is hasn't been touched. There's plenty of feed and habitat. Also anywhere where elk are expanding they put liberal any elk seasons on them and wipe them out. GMU 388 near Goldendale is an example. Let the elk and deer expand. Unfortunately the WDFW pander to the farmers.
In Kittitas County for example they use the Master Hunter program as a band aid to shoot 2 cow elk per hunter a year to keep them out of the hay fields. Instead of putting up an elk fence just like every where else. Yeah there's no elk fence and the farmers get paid thousands of dollars every year by the WDFW for damages. At the same time during the winter cattle feed in the hay fields. Explain how elk damage the hay fields but cattle don't.
As for pheasant why is it that they plant a ton of pheasant but they list exactly where and when they release them. Also why do the release them the day before the season starts. Then they wonder why non of them survive. How about the plant them in the spring.
As for predators many states do not require a license to shoot coyotes. We all know why they require one in this state. TO MAKE MONEY. Also why do they protect the cougars so much. Only one GMU is open in Kittitas county and one GMU is open for them in Yakima County. I call BS.
I think they need to either increase the herds so we have more opportunity or make it permit so we have better opportunity. Spike or Antlerless for elk isn't quality hunting. Also they need to manage for better buck to doe ratios/bull to cow ratios. Just because you have a ton of animals doesnt mean its a good thing. For example in the Colockum the bull to cow ratio is 5:100. When it should be at least 10:100. So why do they not allow archers to harvest cows and why do they not give out any cow permits to the rifle or ML guys?
To make a long rant short. All our WDFW cares about is $$$$$$$. They don't care about us they don't care about the wildlife. They know that as long as they have OTC tags, no matter how crappy the hunting becomes we will still buy licenses and they will still get paid.
Post by: colockumelk on October 05, 2009, 06:50:02 PM
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80)
Here's another thing I wrote that is more specific to the Colockum.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/80)
Post by: Jerbear on October 06, 2009, 11:54:58 PM
I am sure that a lot of you remember back a few years ago, when the state biologist from Yakima stated that he had found the hairs of a Canadian Lynx. Then because of questions ask by state Senators and Representives, he recanted and said they were submitted to test the lab that was doing testing for them. He could have shut down a whole hell of a lot of state and national forrest had he got away with it. State Senator Honeyford wanted him fired as did some others. He is still there. The new director is from the same tree, and Ithink it will be the same b.s. I have to quit now, as I am sure my blood pressure is about maxed out. I just don't trust the *censored*s. Not talkling about the wildlife agents. They do a good job.
Post by: colockumelk on October 07, 2009, 09:20:37 AM
You would think that with more restrictions and less hunters we'd have more game and better hunting :dunno: The only thing I can think of is 1.) horrible game management by the WDFW. and 2.) Maybe advances in technology. Such as in the 50's scopes weren't as popular. Range finders to improve accuracy etc. and 3.) The increase in road access. Now adays the roads are nice and every one has 4WD trucks. And there's a ton of ATV's driving all over.
I'm not saying go back to flint locks and dis-allow motorized vehicles in the woods. I'm just saying those three things are the only things I can think of that have had a negative impact on the quality of our game herds.
Post by: colockumelk on October 07, 2009, 09:21:40 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on October 07, 2009, 09:47:02 AM
colockumelk.............Make one wonder huh? I too remember those days. A lot more opportunity than today...............some habitat related (pheasants), but most management related (big game).
Jerbear..................you hit it pretty much right on the head.