Post by: Curly on March 17, 2010, 01:43:28 PM
Or do you know what their goals are and who their members are? Seems like the WDFW is receiving comments from the GMAC and calling that public input. So I'm just trying to figure out what this group is? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on March 17, 2010, 03:09:42 PM
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
NEWS RELEASE
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 18, 2009
Contact: Dave Ware, (360) 902-2509
WDFW seeks applicants for positions
on game management advisory council
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking nominations for its Game Management Advisory Council. WDFW Director Phil Anderson will appoint five new members to the 20-member council to advise the department on issues including hunter access opportunities, allocation, funding options, research projects and implementation of the department’s Game Management Plan.
Nominees do not have to be affiliated with an organized group. Nominations must be submitted in writing with the following information:
Nominee’s name, address, telephone number and email address.
Relevant experience and reasons for wanting to serve as a member of the advisory group.
Nominee’s effectiveness in communication.
Name and contact information for any individual or organization submitting a nomination.
Nominations must be received by 5 p.m., December 15. Nominations must be submitted to Dave Ware, Game Division Manager by mail: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way N, Olympia, WA 98501-1091; or email at David.Ware@dfw.wa.gov. For more information, contact Dave Ware at (360) 902-2509.
New advisory council members will serve three-year terms, and should be available for advisory committee meetings beginning as early as January 2010. The council holds at least three one-day meetings each year. Special meetings may be called when special issues/topics arise. Council members, upon request, will be reimbursed by WDFW for travel expenses to attend meetings.
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2010, 03:32:54 PM
Post by: Curly on March 17, 2010, 03:35:34 PM
Post by: Shootmoore on March 17, 2010, 03:42:38 PM
How is the GMAC getting public imput? Coffee shops in Seattle, Polls, mailings, or just what they think the public is interested in.
Seems interesting that no one seems to know anything about GMAC yet they are the public imput to the WDFW.
Shootmoore
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2010, 02:54:02 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2010, 06:39:03 AM
The Department of Fish & Wildlife and the Commission apparently take what the GMAC members say and assume their opinion is shared by the majority of hunters in the state. So in this case the GMAC gives their support to the proposed changes to the special permit system, and the WDFW is saying that the proposal has "broad public support." But does it really?
How come the WDFW didn't put out a news release or put something more prominent on their website giving the details of exactly what the changes were going to be? And seriously, why wouldn't a member of the GMAC get on here and keep us posted with what's going on? What would it hurt? Since apparently the WDFW frowns on their employees posting on internet message boards, it would be nice to have someone from the "inside" posting up the information we really need to know, and a GMAC member ought to be able to do so without repercussions from the WDFW, as has happened at least once on here in the past, with a DFW employee. If the GMAC members are lifetime hunters and so dedicated to it that they volunteer their time being on the GMAC, wouldn't an internet message board be a valuable tool for them to gather public input on hunting issues?
The biggest problem with the proposal is the fact that they want to place people's points in all the categories... categories in which the points were not earned. This is something that the public should have been made aware of long ago. The other issue is that the WDFW has stated, or at least implied, that one of the reasons for the change is to increase a person's odds of drawing a special permit. This plan actually does the opposite and that's another reason the public should have been made aware of this several months ago, while there was still time for the WDFW to take the public's viewpoint into consideration. Oh well, I'm just preaching to the choir here. Time to get busy and write more letters....
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2010, 07:48:18 AM
Post by: Curly on March 18, 2010, 08:30:06 AM
Do you guys think that any member of the Gmac is going to get on here and be hassled by a group of disgruntled people. If I were on it I wouldn't. I do know a couple of people on it and according to them almost all of the members are hunters, and they represent Washington state archers, Washington state muzzleloaders, modern firearms users and several sportsmen's groups from all around the state. No Defenders of wildlife or peta representatives. And from what I have been told they don't report to the commission, but to the director of the WDFW. The guys I know are lifetime hunters and are every bit as committed wildlife in this state as any of you. Maybe they aren't always right but a least they try. If you want more influence on the WDFW get together as a group and send your opinions and ideas, a comment from a group of 500 people carries more impact than 500 individuals.
I didn't expect a member from the GMAC to get on here, but I figured someone on here might know a member of the GMAC and could shed some light on what they are about. Between the Googled info from Bobcat and the info you just gave it helps give a little insight into what is going on. Like Bobcat said, the WDFW seems to put a lot of weight into what the GMAC has to say and it seems like they interpret that as public input.
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2010, 09:22:11 AM
GMAC is an advisory group to the Director of the WDFW on all big game management issues. Even if you don't believe it, the members do represent a pretty good cross section of Washington state hunters. When the issue was voted on the vote to support it was not unanimous but the majority did vote to support this proposal.
I do agree with Bearpaw that the wolf working group was weighted in favor of the pro wolf side. That is why the minority opinion was put out by part of that group. Just so you know, the GMAC sent a letter to the director stating that they did not agree with the departments chosen wolf management option, and felt that more work was needed on ungulate management options in case wolves start to decimate our hard fought for herds.
Post by: bearpaw on March 18, 2010, 09:38:08 AM
Probably not since coyote hunting was cut last year for no compelling reason. I also wonder if they actually recommended that?
Post by: Bob33 on March 18, 2010, 09:45:27 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 18, 2010, 09:46:53 AM
Perhaps the best way to find out information such as that would be to look in the archives of the Fish & Wildlife Commission meetings, and look at the agendes, minutes, and then possibly the audio transcripts. I'd do it but I don't have time right now. Here is a link:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/index.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/meetings/2010/index.html)
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2010, 10:49:23 AM
I am glad to hear that they are a good cross section. But, I wonder if there are any hound hunters included?
Probably not since coyote hunting was cut last year for no compelling reason. I also wonder if they actually recommended that?
Bearpaw, They only advise on big game, coyotes are considered predators not big game, so they probably didn't have anything to do with that decision.
I will try to find out if there are any hound hunters in the group.
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2010, 11:03:51 AM
After going back and reading some of the other threads on the new application proposal I believe that comments made by Dave Ware (WDFW), at the last commission meeting may have given the members of this forum the idea that the Game Management Advisory Council has far more influence than they actually have. I may be wrong but that thread seems to be where all the concern about the GMAC seems to have started. It seems like this group is looking for someone to blame for the new permit setup, the ultimate responsibility still stays with the WDFW, in my opinion. :twocents:
Post by: Bob33 on March 18, 2010, 11:09:28 AM
I may be wrong but that thread seems to be where all the concern about the GMAC seems to have started. It seems like this group is looking for someone to blame for the new permit setup, the ultimate responsibility still stays with the WDFW, in my opinion. :twocents:
You are correct that the WDFW is responsible. However, GMAC is the only group mentioned that supports the change. That seems rather shallow. If there is broad public input, they should be able to mention lots of groups that support it.
"“This plan is designed to give hunters more options for getting the special permits they really want,” said Ware, noting that the proposal was developed with broad public input and support from the WDFW’s Game Management Advisory Committee.
Post by: Curly on March 18, 2010, 11:12:28 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on March 18, 2010, 11:41:48 AM
You're probably right Wingshooter. I was just questioning if WDFW thought they had pubic support because of the GMAC acceptance of the new proposal. I was probably jumping to the wrong conclusion. I hadn't heard of the GMAC until the recent commission meeting and I was just curious about the group. Sounds like they might be a good group.........although there was a guy from the GMAC at the mtg and he was sure praising the new system.......
Curly,
I'm sure that some of the GMAC group does support this plan, but I'm also sure that not all of them did.
Post by: Shootmoore on March 18, 2010, 11:42:46 PM
Shootmoore