Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2010, 02:45:39 PM
Quote
Thank you for your email to Director Anderson and the link to the blog about the proposal for special hunting permit categories. These discussion forums are a good way to gage what folks are thinking and the participants in this one are debating many of the same things we considered while developing our recommendations.
The objectives of the proposal are to try to improve the odds of drawing; allow more choices for hunters in permit applications; and generate funding to expand our hunter access program. It is difficult to make big improvements in the odds of drawing, but we think this proposal will help because there should be less overall competition with separate drawing categories. If this doesn’t result in a significant change in some categories, we can look at other ideas in the future. This recommendation will be significant for the other two objectives and after considering the pros and cons of the changes, we think that most hunters will support the recommended change.
On a national basis, the most significant thing that fish and wildlife agencies can do to recruit and retain hunters is improve access opportunities. In Washington, we have been working with hunters and conservation organizations to expand our access program for several years, this proposal will help us achieve that goal.
Dividing up the hunt choices among categories is challenging and will likely be highly debated by the public. The greatest challenge was the quality category and we generally considered: low density of other hunters, relatively high harvest success rates, season timing close to the rut or after migration, and how many hunters put in for the hunt in the past. The proposals will be available for comment early next month and we strongly encourage folks to submit their thoughts at that time.
Thanks again for sharing the link.
Sincerely,
Dave Ware, Game Division Manager
Post by: Skillet on January 21, 2010, 03:19:03 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 03:22:28 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:24:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 03:25:24 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:26:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2010, 03:27:22 PM
Quote
It is still a proposal, but as I said, I think it will be pretty popular. We have been discussing this concept with the public since July of 2008 (through web surveys and public meetings). It was one of the proposals for the 2009-11 Hunting Season Package, but with the changes it would require to our computerized drawing system, there wasn’t time to consider it last year. Hunters were pretty excited about it during the public meetings and we have worked the proposal pretty extensively with our Game Management Advisory Council. This is a group of citizens who provide the department council on game management issues. After listening to their issues and ideas, we developed the proposal that will be available for comment in February.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:28:36 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 03:29:35 PM
Quote
It is still a proposal, but as I said, I think it will be pretty popular. We have been discussing this concept with the public since July of 2008
Why do I get the feeling Bobcat was the only one they discussed it with. :chuckle:
Post by: rougheye on January 21, 2010, 03:32:29 PM
QuoteIt is still a proposal, but as I said, I think it will be pretty popular. We have been discussing this concept with the public since July of 2008
Why do I get the feeling Bobcat was the only one they discussed it with. :chuckle:
lol In that case we are screwwed :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 03:36:52 PM
Sounds just like this healthcare BS being shoved down our throats. :twocents:
Post by: wsmnut on January 21, 2010, 03:39:17 PM
We're just along for the ride, now.
Yep. It's done.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:40:26 PM
I bet they think that we dont know the difference and just give us lip service at the improved odds.
Post by: woodswalker on January 21, 2010, 03:47:37 PM
Quote
Hunters were pretty excited about it during the public meetings and we have worked the proposal pretty extensively with our Game Management Advisory Council.
He is just mistaking the PISSED OFF for excited. >:( :bash:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:49:41 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2010, 03:52:10 PM
Seriously though, I have to think that a good representation of the Washington hunting community is right here on this site and if an overwhelming majority of the guys here dont like it, how did they think they are going to have a positive reaction to it. :dunno:
Sounds just like this healthcare BS being shoved down our throats. :twocents:
did anyone else e-mail them besides me?
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:53:32 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2010, 03:54:59 PM
i woulda figured at 28 pages on the other thread someone else would have bitched to them besides me.
:dunno:
this was my email to the director...
Quote
there are 4500 washington hunters on here looking for explanations.thats it.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,42946.0.html
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:57:07 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 21, 2010, 03:58:09 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 21, 2010, 03:59:33 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on January 21, 2010, 04:11:08 PM
Post by: uplandhunter870 on January 21, 2010, 04:22:48 PM
i have come to believe that the WDFW will do what they want how they want, and simply see us as $$$$. and that they couldn't care less about actually managing the game we do have and are being persuaded by a bunch of THDW's.
thats my honest :twocents:
Steve
Post by: rougheye on January 21, 2010, 04:29:43 PM
i dont really know if any of our input ever really matters to them. did anyone hear anything about the extra permit they added for next years salmon and steelhead fishing on the columbia before they came out saying "hey guess what", now we are getting hit with an additional $13 fee just to fish the columbia and what does that money go towards? certainly wont be for added run populations since they are doing their damnedest to scourge the river of hatchery fish.your not alone in your thinking :bash:
i have come to believe that the WDFW will do what they want how they want, and simply see us as $$$$. and that they couldn't care less about actually managing the game we do have and are being persuaded by a bunch of THDW's.
thats my honest :twocents:
Steve
Post by: billythekidrock on January 21, 2010, 04:42:13 PM
I suggest we let them know how we really feel, but we have to be polite about it.
I personally want less (1) hunt choices and I do not want a "quality" category. Matter of fact, I don't want any "categories".
But we all can not agree...so they will make the choices for us and we will "like" them.
Post by: Wacenturion on January 21, 2010, 04:58:58 PM
Post by: Curly on January 21, 2010, 04:59:48 PM
Post by: spikehunter on January 21, 2010, 05:02:53 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 21, 2010, 05:04:06 PM
Business as usual.......they just use those surveys, or should I say parts of the surveys to validate what they want to impose. There is a real bias in how questions are put together to get the results they want
I absolutely agree.
I have stated it elsewhere.. there are courses in creating surveys and how to properly pose questions to get your desired answer.
Post by: JBar on January 21, 2010, 05:12:15 PM
Seriously though, I have to think that a good representation of the Washington hunting community is right here on this site and if an overwhelming majority of the guys here dont like it, how did they think they are going to have a positive reaction to it. :dunno:
Sounds just like this healthcare BS being shoved down our throats. :twocents:
did anyone else e-mail them besides me?
Post the e-mail address you sent it to and I'll fire one off also. I want to make sure it goes to the same person.
Post by: Skillet on January 21, 2010, 05:13:06 PM
Seriously though, I have to think that a good representation of the Washington hunting community is right here on this site...
We might - what you mean by "good representation"? Sheer numbers? Cross-section of all types of hunters?
Most of what they are hearing as positive feedback is just answers to questions that they formulate to generate the responses they want to hear.
WDFW: "Who here wants better draw odds?"
Hunters: All hands go up.
WDFW: "Who here wants more public access?"
Hunters: All hands stay up.
WDFW: "Who here would support a program that will increase both?"
Hunters: 10% of knowing, skeptical hunter's hands go down - "We want to see how this works, first."
What's left? 90% approval! Or, as the WDFW likes to say, "Overwhelming support."
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 05:32:02 PM
Quote
what you mean by "good representation"? Sheer numbers? Cross-section of all types of hunters?
I have been here long enough to see that we have a diverse cross section of Washington hunters here, and if an overwhelming number of them don't like this proposal, I believe if worded correctly in a survey, there would be no way WDFW could interpret it differently.
Post by: Wacenturion on January 21, 2010, 05:35:25 PM
Seriously though, I have to think that a good representation of the Washington hunting community is right here on this site...
We might - what you mean by "good representation"? Sheer numbers? Cross-section of all types of hunters?
Most of what they are hearing as positive feedback is just answers to questions that they formulate to generate the responses they want to hear.
WDFW: "Who here wants better draw odds?"
Hunters: All hands go up.
WDFW: "Who here wants more public access?"
Hunters: All hands stay up.
WDFW: "Who here would support a program that will increase both?"
Hunters: 10% of knowing, skeptical hunter's hands go down - "We want to see how this works, first."
What's left? 90% approval! Or, as the WDFW likes to say, "Overwhelming support."
Pretty well sums it up..........lol. :chuckle:
Post by: Skillet on January 21, 2010, 05:40:20 PM
I have been here long enough to see that we have a diverse cross section of Washington hunters here, and if an overwhelming number of them don't like this proposal, I believe if worded correctly in a survey, there would be no way WDFW could interpret it differently.
I can get on board with that... I wonder if they would consider putting up a simple little survey on the site? I mean, they spend plenty of taxpayer dollars to have public forums, and solicit the opinions of as many people as possible - why would they not take advantage of simply putting up a survey here? That is possible, correct?
Post by: Bob33 on January 21, 2010, 05:43:11 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on January 21, 2010, 05:46:44 PM
"On a national basis, the most significant thing that fish and wildlife agencies can do to recruit and retain hunters is improve access opportunities. In Washington, we have been working with hunters and conservation organizations to expand our access program for several years, this proposal will help us achieve that goal."
That's just so much crap it's laughable. WDFW had the best access/habitat development program in the entire county (feel free to hunt,hunt by written permission, register to hunt, etc.) with their Upland Wildlife Restoration Program which was implemented in 1991. Among other things like 3 million plus private acres coupled with aggressive agreements for habitat enhancement on DNR lands, that program also gave you Washington's Wild Turkey. That program was growing by leaps and bounds................until...........
That program became too popular with landowners and sportsman and was taken over by wildlife management in late 1999, where upon they have now dismantled it. So as far as his statement.............absolutely laughable as I said above. Better yet complete b***s***.
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 05:52:18 PM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,42953.0.html
Post by: Lowedog on January 21, 2010, 06:11:43 PM
I reset the poll in regards to this permit change, go and vote and we will see how Huntwa feels.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,42953.0.html
How many people voted last time? Last I looked it was maybe 40. How is that an overwhelming majority of people on this site?
You have about 15-20 guys bitching about on this and the other thread. That is nowhere near a diverse cross section of WA hunters.
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 06:19:15 PM
Quote
You have about 15-20 guys bitching about on this and the other thread. That is nowhere near a diverse cross section of WA hunters.
You really need to read through the posts Lowedog, I said the site has a diverse cross section, I didn't say they all voted in the poll. If you like the plan then say so in the poll.
Post by: billythekidrock on January 21, 2010, 06:22:36 PM
Post by: Lowedog on January 21, 2010, 06:27:26 PM
Seriously though, I have to think that a good representation of the Washington hunting community is right here on this site and if an overwhelming majority of the guys here dont like it,
Quotewhat you mean by "good representation"? Sheer numbers? Cross-section of all types of hunters?
I have been here long enough to see that we have a diverse cross section of Washington hunters here, and if an overwhelming number of them don't like this proposal, I believe if worded correctly in a survey, there would be no way WDFW could interpret it differently.
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. :dunno:
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 06:33:36 PM
Quote
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying.
;) Basically what I was trying to say is that if WDFW wants genuine answers to a survey they have a large group of Washington hunters right here, that represent a diverse opinion. There are far more hunters that check this site everyday than the WDFW site, why not utilize it and get a genuine opinion. My guess is they don't want to here it, knowing it would dispute their true agenda.
Post by: whacker1 on January 21, 2010, 07:07:00 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 07:12:42 PM
Post by: Special T on January 21, 2010, 07:32:56 PM
Post by: huntnphool on January 21, 2010, 07:36:47 PM
Post by: shanevg on January 21, 2010, 09:04:24 PM
Post by: shanevg on January 21, 2010, 09:04:46 PM
Post by: bobcat on January 21, 2010, 09:53:43 PM
Quote
These complaints have merit. Under the current system, all applications for special deer permits are randomly drawn from the same pool, each weighted according to the number of points the applicant has accumulated from past drawings. The computer calculates these points and registers the hunter’s preferences (e.g. “buck,” “second antlerless”), but ultimately draws successful applications for all special deer hunts from the same pool. The same is true, under the current system, for elk permits.
This “pooling” approach also creates problems for WDFW. Errors and delays in permit drawings are far more likely under a system that requires the computer to cross-reference so many applications at once.
So they're saying with these new changes that create at least 14 new categories, the special permit drawing is going to be less prone to errors ??? :dunno:
Post by: shanevg on January 21, 2010, 09:57:44 PM
I was reading through the information the WDFW has on their website regarding the changes they propose. The part below that I put in bold struck me kind of funny:QuoteThese complaints have merit. Under the current system, all applications for special deer permits are randomly drawn from the same pool, each weighted according to the number of points the applicant has accumulated from past drawings. The computer calculates these points and registers the hunter’s preferences (e.g. “buck,” “second antlerless”), but ultimately draws successful applications for all special deer hunts from the same pool. The same is true, under the current system, for elk permits.
This “pooling” approach also creates problems for WDFW. Errors and delays in permit drawings are far more likely under a system that requires the computer to cross-reference so many applications at once.
So they're saying with these new changes that create at least 14 new categories, the special permit drawing is going to be less prone to errors ??? :dunno:
That's what they are saying...
Post by: bobcat on January 21, 2010, 10:03:49 PM
they are having:
Quote
a variety of categories, to include: 1) buck or bull permits, 2) antlerless permits, 3) second tag antlerless permits, 4) quality hunt permits, 5) youth hunt permits, 6) senior hunt permits, 7) disabled hunter permits, and 8] Master Hunter permits.
:yike: ???
Post by: Lowedog on January 21, 2010, 11:53:18 PM
From the response of Dave Ware I think they will go forward with it. It will be interesting to see how it works out. If a lot of people buy multiple applications the dept will see it as a success.
Post by: JBar on January 22, 2010, 05:36:26 AM
Post by: billythekidrock on January 22, 2010, 05:43:28 AM
It seems to make the draw go easier they could allow only 1 choice on each application and keep the number of "pools" to the minimum. But instead:
they are having:Quotea variety of categories, to include: 1) buck or bull permits, 2) antlerless permits, 3) second tag antlerless permits, 4) quality hunt permits, 5) youth hunt permits, 6) senior hunt permits, 7) disabled hunter permits, and 8] Master Hunter permits.
:yike: ???
So now instead of applying for the one MH unit (and saving up points) I can now apply for a quality hunt with 4 choices and make the odds worse for those wanting to draw a quality tag.
Post by: billythekidrock on January 22, 2010, 05:54:32 AM
They are almost forcing hunters to buy more permits by implementing this system if the hunter wants to continue putting in for the same hunts that they used to apply for on one application.
Not almost..they are, and they know it. It is purely a revenue generating project. They know that we will have to keep up with the "Jones's" to even have a hope of drawing in the future.
The problem is those with a lot of points (10 or more) will have them straight acrossed the board and have a monopoly on all categories. Yes, I know you can draw with one or minimal points, but for the most part those with max points will be drawing the most permits in all categories for the next few years. Those that have always applied for meat permits will be beaten out by those who typically only apply for trophy hunts.
So now it comes to the money part and if you can't afford to apply for every category every year then you fall farther and farther behind.
I am eligible for 5 of the categories and I know some that will be able to apply for 7 of them. So now instead of 2 permit apps (deer and elk = $10), I will have to apply for 8-10 categories ($40-$50) just to hope to get drawn for something in the future. Then you throw in the wife and kid(s)? How can a guy afford another $150 a year just to keep up on points?
Post by: boneaddict on January 22, 2010, 06:01:14 AM
director@dfw.wa.gov
Post by: jackelope on January 22, 2010, 07:02:49 AM
Post by: Wacenturion on January 22, 2010, 07:43:17 AM
that is the email i used as well, however the response came from a different guy.
The Director doesn't read your requests or respond directly even if it has his own signature on the return letter or email. These kind of inquiries are given to wildlife management or the apporiate program (fish for fish issues etc.)to answer.....i.e Dave Ware and others. So if you think the Director is seeing your question, you're grossly mistaken.
If his signature is on it it is because it's a response to something and/or somebody who the agency thinks needs his signature to make it seem as though the response is coming directly from him and therefore makes it more personal. In this case the Director has read and signed the letter, although someone on his staff wrote it. You would be much better off complaining to members of the Commission............or better yet the Governor's office, which automatically gives it a higher priority as far as WDFW is concerned when it is sent down to the Director's office, although the same process described above takes place.
Post by: Wacenturion on January 22, 2010, 07:43:57 AM
It seems to make the draw go easier they could allow only 1 choice on each application and keep the number of "pools" to the minimum. But instead:
they are having:Quotea variety of categories, to include: 1) buck or bull permits, 2) antlerless permits, 3) second tag antlerless permits, 4) quality hunt permits, 5) youth hunt permits, 6) senior hunt permits, 7) disabled hunter permits, and 8] Master Hunter permits.
:yike: ???
So now instead of applying for the one MH unit (and saving up points) I can now apply for a quality hunt with 4 choices and make the odds worse for those wanting to draw a quality tag.
YEP!
Post by: Bob33 on January 22, 2010, 07:52:24 AM
Yes - that's the way it works today. Scott Brown was the first Republican elected in several decades in Massachusetts, overcoming a 30 point Democratic lead, because the voters were angry at Republican George Bush. That's what the man said. Must be true.
Post by: JBar on January 22, 2010, 08:52:22 AM
This is the e-mail that I used
director@dfw.wa.gov
Sent! Thanks Bone!
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2010, 08:59:29 AM
I'll look around and see if I can verify that.
Post by: boneaddict on January 22, 2010, 09:55:06 AM
Same as Jacks
Thank you for your email to Director Anderson regarding the proposal for special hunting permit categories. The objectives of the proposal are to try to improve the odds of drawing; allow more choices for hunters in permit applications; and generate funding to expand our hunter access program. It is difficult to make big improvements in the odds of drawing, but we think this proposal will help because there should be less overall competition with separate drawing categories. If this doesn’t result in a significant change in some categories, we can look at other ideas in the future. This recommendation will be significant for the other two objectives and after considering the pros and cons of the changes, we think that most hunters will support the recommended change.
On a national basis, the most significant thing that fish and wildlife agencies can do to recruit and retain hunters is improve access opportunities. In Washington, we have been working with hunters and conservation organizations to expand our access program for several years, this proposal will help us achieve that goal.
Dividing up the hunt choices among categories is challenging and will likely be highly debated by the public. The greatest challenge was the quality category and we generally considered: low density of other hunters, relatively high harvest success rates, season timing close to the rut or after migration, and how many hunters put in for the hunt in the past. The proposals will be available for comment early next month and we strongly encourage folks to submit their thoughts at that time.
If you would like to discuss the proposal a little more, please give me your phone number and I will give you a call.
Sincerely,
Dave Ware, Game Division Manager
Post by: JBar on January 22, 2010, 09:56:33 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 22, 2010, 09:57:17 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 22, 2010, 10:01:39 AM
you can reply to it with a question and get a real answer from a real person.
Post by: boneaddict on January 22, 2010, 10:04:19 AM
Post by: JBar on January 22, 2010, 10:04:29 AM
I would have called SUX but I really didn't want to waste my breath on someone who just answers the phone.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 22, 2010, 10:07:39 AM
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2010, 10:08:24 AM
If a lot of people buy multiple applications the dept will see it as a success.
I agree Lowedog, the real question though is, will the hunters?
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2010, 10:18:42 AM
Can we count on you, phool, to stay out of the draw this year?
Post by: Shootmoore on January 22, 2010, 10:23:55 AM
"In the immortal words of General Anthony Clement McAuliffe in the official response to the German demand for surrender during the battle of Bastogne.....NUTS!. While not eloquent, it sums up my feelings quite well at this new drawing scam(sic) put forth by the WDFW to generate additional revenue from hunters to pay for not game management. Eventually you know you can not draw blood from a turnip."
Shootmoore
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2010, 10:29:06 AM
Quote
The objectives of the proposal are to try to improve the odds of drawing; allow more choices for hunters in permit applications; and generate funding to expand our hunter access program.
Then they say:
Quote
It is difficult to make big improvements in the odds of drawing..........If this doesn’t result in a significant change in some categories, we can look at other ideas in the future. This recommendation will be significant for the other two objectives
So they already know the odds of drawing, in general won't be improved. However, they are saying the proposal WILL generate more money for the WDFW, and will allow hunters more choices.
Can't really argue with that. I can't really fault them. They're doing what hunters have asked for. The best way to make draw odds better would be to simply increase the cost of each application, and maybe have a waiting period for successful applicants. But that's not what hunters asked for.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on January 22, 2010, 10:31:13 AM
Post by: Lowedog on January 22, 2010, 10:56:01 AM
If a lot of people buy multiple applications the dept will see it as a success.
I agree Lowedog, the real question though is, will the hunters?
If hunters are spending money on it, one could only assume that hunters DO see it as a success. Otherwise they wouldn't be spending money on it. That's the way I am sure the WDFW will see it anyway. I guess for those of us that don't like it, show your lack of support by not spending your money on applications...
Can we count on you, phool, to stay out of the draw this year?
That is the real question...if you don't like it yet support it by buying multiple apps then it can only be seen as a success from the WDFW's standpoint.
I was thinking about this thread and wondered how serious they are going to take the emails from H-W members especially if it has a link to a "blog" where WDFW is being bashed.
Bone, did the mass email not work? I never received a copy.
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2010, 11:01:23 AM
Quote
That is the real question...if you don't like it yet support it by buying multiple apps then it can only be seen as a success from the WDFW's standpoint
True, however just because people pay for it doesn't mean they think its okay. Just like fuel, people are paying double what they did not so long ago, the oil companies may see it as a success because its still selling, but the poeple are definately not happy about it.
Post by: Curly on January 22, 2010, 11:21:19 AM
The best way to make draw odds better would be to simply increase the cost of each application, and maybe have a waiting period for successful applicants. But that's not what hunters asked for.
Those are good ways of increasing draw odds.......but the best way would be to increase the deer/elk populations so that there would be more animals to offer tags for. One way to do that would be to fix the predator problems in this State.
They should open Cougar season year around, allow dogs for coyote hunters, open more spring bear seasons, and kill the wolves. That would provide more opportunity for harvest of game, thus increasing hunter numbers and thus increasing license, tag and permit sales. Problem solved. No need to change the draw sytem..... :bash:
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2010, 11:23:47 AM
Post by: Lowedog on January 22, 2010, 11:37:08 AM
QuoteThat is the real question...if you don't like it yet support it by buying multiple apps then it can only be seen as a success from the WDFW's standpoint
True, however just because people pay for it doesn't mean they think its okay. Just like fuel, people are paying double what they did not so long ago, the oil companies may see it as a success because its still selling, but the poeple are definately not happy about it.
I can see your point but fuel is a necessity and special hunt apps are not. If they go ahead with it which I think is safe to say they will you can support it by doing exactly what they want you to or you could just put in for quality hunts like you probably usually do and have a stronger stance on getting them to do something differently in 2011.
Post by: huntnphool on January 22, 2010, 11:44:34 AM
Post by: Curly on January 22, 2010, 11:45:00 AM
Post by: Lowedog on January 22, 2010, 11:58:24 AM
Fuel, like the late hunt, is not a necessity its a convenience. You don't need to buy fuel, you can walk or ride a bike. I don't need to hunt the late season, I can hunt the general or not at all.
Give me a break! That is a ridiculous comparison. You need to come up with something better than fuel to compare it to. To me fuel is a necessity, I have to buy it to make a living just like a lot of folks.
Post by: wrangler on January 22, 2010, 06:43:19 PM
Quote
It is still a proposal, but as I said, I think it will be pretty popular. We have been discussing this concept with the public since July of 2008 (through web surveys and public meetings). It was one of the proposals for the 2009-11 Hunting Season Package, but with the changes it would require to our computerized drawing system, there wasn’t time to consider it last year. Hunters were pretty excited about it during the public meetings and we have worked the proposal pretty extensively with our Game Management Advisory Council. This is a group of citizens who provide the department council on game management issues. After listening to their issues and ideas, we developed the proposal that will be available for comment in February.
ummmm ok. so who exactly is the 'public'? we have how many thousands of members on this board? some of which seem to be pretty intune and up to date on the wdfw and attend meetings and public hearings.... they been discussing this with the public since uh 2008? wtf? and we all just heard word one about it 2 weeks ago? ooooooooookkkkkk.
ps. sorry if this has been talked about on the board for the last couple years and im just now hearing about it... although id like to think the rock i live under isn't that big!
Post by: bobcat on January 22, 2010, 07:01:35 PM
Post by: yelp on January 30, 2010, 09:03:16 AM
They did tell us there would be some big changes in the system sometime last summer I think it was, but they didn't say what the changes would be. I think we've all been assuming that they were going to reduce the number of choices on each application from 4, to 2 or 1.
IMO -I think in the quality hunt (bull and buck rut hunts) category 1-2 choices should be allowed and up to four in the others (for deer and elk).
Post by: heavy hauler on January 31, 2010, 09:16:03 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on February 01, 2010, 05:52:46 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 01, 2010, 07:25:30 AM
Yelp - the "Quality" category will only allow two choices. All other categories will offer 4.
Where did that information come from ???
Post by: billythekidrock on February 01, 2010, 04:56:48 PM
Yelp - the "Quality" category will only allow two choices. All other categories will offer 4.
Where did that information come from ???
Trust me. Have you ever known me to just throw crap out there?
Post by: shanevg on February 03, 2010, 10:06:17 PM
How does the Department propose to change the current system?
To address these issues, WDFW proposes to require separate applications for specific categories of deer, elk, bighorn sheep, moose, and cougar permits. Separate drawings will be conducted in each category. Specifically, hunters may purchase and submit separate applications for a variety of categories, to include:
* Buck or bull permits
* Antlerless permits
* Second tag permits
* Quality hunt permits
* Youth hunt permits
* Senior hunt permits
* Disabled hunter permits
* Master Hunter permits
I guess I was under the impression that this only included deer and elk. I guess the odds for those cow moose tags just plummeted too didn't they!
https://fishhunt.dfw.wa.gov/wdfw/special_permits.html
Post by: bobcat on February 04, 2010, 05:43:01 AM