Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on October 21, 2009, 02:10:04 PM
Dear Wildlife Enthusiast:
Enclosed for your review and comment are regulations that will be proposed at the December 4-5, 2009 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Olympia. The Commission will consider amending regulations regarding big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits.
The proposed changes are the result of legislative amendments to RCW 77.32.530 from last session that increased raffle opportunities for big game and wild turkey.
If you would like the Department and Commission to consider your written comments regarding this proposal, please submit them by November 9, 2009.
Thank you for your interest in the management of wildlife in this state. If you have any questions, please contact us at (360) 902-2515.
Sincerely,
Wildlife Program Customer Service
Post by: Ray on October 21, 2009, 02:27:42 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on October 21, 2009, 02:59:44 PM
Dear Wildlife Enthusiast:
Enclosed for your review and comment are regulations that will be proposed at the December 4-5, 2009 Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting in Olympia. The Commission will consider amending regulations regarding big game and wild turkey auction, raffle, and special incentive permits.
The proposed changes are the result of legislative amendments to RCW 77.32.530 from last session that increased raffle opportunities for big game and wild turkey.
If you would like the Department and Commission to consider your written comments regarding this proposal, please submit them by November 9, 2009.
Thank you for your interest in the management of wildlife in this state. If you have any questions, please contact us at (360) 902-2515.
Sincerely,
Wildlife Program Customer Service
Post by: rosscrazyelk on October 21, 2009, 03:57:58 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on October 21, 2009, 04:56:33 PM
Post by: andrew_12gauge on October 21, 2009, 06:39:54 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on October 21, 2009, 06:51:44 PM
Post by: mossback91 on October 21, 2009, 06:52:45 PM
Post by: yelp on October 21, 2009, 08:32:37 PM
Post by: nwhunter on October 21, 2009, 10:44:21 PM
Post by: SHANE(WA) on October 21, 2009, 11:32:03 PM
Post by: BLUEBULLS on October 22, 2009, 07:02:29 AM
The way I read the email is these new combo hunts can either be auctioned or raffled whatever will benefit wdfw the most and it is at the wildlife commissions discretion. Personally I think they will be auctioned so the regular joe doesn't have a chance at them, it will be the rich guys tags again, like they don't have enough already. And as far as the multiple species tags where one guy could have tags for whitetail, mule deer, elk and choice of mt goat, moose or sheep from sept thru dec why should one person have that kind of opportunity for all those animals for 4 months when if they want to give out all those tags that are really OIL tags spread the wealth and give one per person. Let multiple hunters enjoy a hunt of a lifetime instead of one wealthy person cramming it all into one fall. I think we have enough auction tags already with one per species, if wdfw thinks they need to give out more tags to raise revenue do it through raffles so the regular joe has a chance. nwhunter
agreed!!
I'm starting to hate the auction tags. It wouldn't be as big of a deal to me if they had to use the weapon for the season. It looks like that's how some of these hunts will be.
I sure hope that they go the raffle route, some units only have a handful of quality animals and if there were 3 or 4 rich guys with tags who hire a herd of guides, none of the top animals would make it...
Post by: youngchristof on October 22, 2009, 07:07:04 AM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on October 22, 2009, 11:02:43 AM
If one penny go's outside the Dept. I'll scream and shout like no tomorrow, I'm tired of financing other State programs that are mis-managed.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on October 22, 2009, 11:15:03 AM
Auction tags are the absolute opposite of everything that the North American model of public wildlife ownership and management for the public represent. Auction tags occur when agencies mistake their mission to be fundraising for their own operating expenses. Selling very limited opportunity, highly coveted hunting opportunities to the highest bidder, no matter how much money is raised and no matter how that money is spent, is 100% WRONG.
I have no problem with a wealthy guy trying to buy the auction by buying a bunch of chances, as long as the average joe can buy a chance and have the possibility of getting the permit.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on October 22, 2009, 12:16:12 PM
I am supportive if they are raffle only. Otherwise, we are headed down the Utah road of lots of opportunity for the wealthy to buy tags to hunt the public's wildlife, even on the public's land.
Auction tags are the absolute opposite of everything that the North American model of public wildlife ownership and management for the public represent. Auction tags occur when agencies mistake their mission to be fundraising for their own operating expenses. Selling very limited opportunity, highly coveted hunting opportunities to the highest bidder, no matter how much money is raised and no matter how that money is spent, is 100% WRONG.
I have no problem with a wealthy guy trying to buy the auction by buying a bunch of chances, as long as the average joe can buy a chance and have the possibility of getting the permit.
I disagree, unless the preference point system is going away also, the average joe still has a good shot at the same types of tags. I'm by no means wealthy and would not put in for an auction tag but I have no issue with the DFW doing what it can to be self sufficient, if the State's other politicians keep their hand's off the money. With programs like this, we wouldn't have lost the dozen's of DFW employee's laid off last year :twocents:.
Post by: Ray on October 22, 2009, 12:19:33 PM
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on October 22, 2009, 12:34:16 PM
They already have auctions. They don't need to have more. These opportunities should be for the general populace. Perhaps we could debate what would have saved jobs there for folks but anyone could probably point to inefficiencies inside their department as ways to save jobs. Maybe they should start by double thinking how they plan to manage these wolves which are here now. They think they need money for revenue now... wait until the deer elk populations are decimated in certain regions. To me at some point I have to call it a sellout. One auction per species seems adequate.
Separate issue, the wolves technically are not being managed by the DFW proper, but rather the volunteer board is responsible for making recommendations to the Commission for approval, which the Commission generally accepts. The laid off employees were neither volunteer, or part of the Commission, but were part of the Dept. proper. I guess you could say they are all really part of the same function, but they really operate separately in making those types of decisions. That said I don't know how much longer a wolf season can be put off.
Post by: Ray on October 22, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
Let's try and keep it back on the auction and raffle discussion.
Post by: Dmanmastertracker on October 22, 2009, 12:51:21 PM
It's about as seperate as including the loss of jobs into the discussion. All are revenue related impacts.
Let's try and keep it back on the auction and raffle discussion.
My point is that those accountable for the wolf decisions have not been impacted by those decisions -yet, in a sense I agree with you that it could financially affect the State at some point if hunting is not allowed soon, due to paid out compensation for wolf damage required by law.
On the auction's, I did not read the term auction in the email I received only raffle tags, so I'm not sure I fully understand where the beef is, but in principal to raffle a tag for a single animal out of thousand's of animals harvested in the State in general seasons/ bonus point seasons, I just don't see what is evil about it, most State's have some form of raffle tag in the West for numerous species and the money raised is a huge boost to hunting opportunities, it is absolutely no different than making a donation to wildlife habitat/ enhancement.
Post by: Ray on October 22, 2009, 12:56:55 PM
Quote
On the auction's, I read the term auction in the email I received only raffle tags
It is in the PDF File. First post on this topic.
I would find it hard to believe that the Commission would not seek some sort of feedback, approval or other input from the Game Dept before such a proposal. In fact maybe they even coordinated on the process/idea. I know they do not necessarily always stand on the same ground. But that's my inkling on the subject at hand. It's definitely not far from believable.
To me - the game department being held accountable for decisions on wolves is an entire debate which we can have. I think that you have several groups in the game department which are in favor of some sort of real management and others who are in favor of save the wolves and as many wolves as we can get - basically no management other than mismanagement. Then we might even have a 3rd group which is people who benefit from having to watch , monitor and report on such species. The longer they have to work on these projects the less their job is in jeopardy. The long term effects are still to be seen but we can look at Idaho for an example...
Anyway - sellout is a sellout to the rich. Reminds me of required guides on Grizzly, dall and goats in Alaska and B.C. If you're rich you can hunt them. Otherwise go somewhere else. There are large differences in the rollout but overall it is the same result. Lining someone's pockets.