Post by: Special T on April 19, 2010, 09:27:54 AM
I think we need a good brain storming session on how to EFFECTIVELY promote change within the WDFW... Lets just toss out some ideas and organize some thoughts... Brainstorming BTW does not include shooting down or rating any of the ideas. What has worked in the past, and what hasn't should be our next stage, but not this one. :twocents:
Here is my idea Hit em in the wallet... I don't buy a fishing lic anymore because i don't like the way they run their program... This year I'm not buying the big package... just my deer and elk instead of all 4... I would like to not buy at all but that's not possible... for me with out becoming an outlaw...
What are your ideas? the crazier the better! Most Great ideas come from thinking outside the box!
So I'll through out the first craze one.... put forth a initiative that requires WDFW employees to purchase a hunting and or fishing licence as a job requirement hunting for hunting related jobs and fishing for fishing related jobs!
Post by: Galpster on April 19, 2010, 09:38:49 AM
If not then I believe it is having a well educated hunter/fisherman group attending these meetings and voicing the truth. If we conduct ourselves professionally and regularly attend these meetings and discussions our voices will be heard.
change will not happen for sure if we just continue to complain about it and do nothing.
Great post by the way, I am looking forward to the ideas. If we get some real good ones maybe we all can act on it and make change!!
Post by: Gobble on April 19, 2010, 09:40:08 AM
I think we need a good brain storming session on how to EFFECTIVELY promote change within the WDFW...
HOPE and CHANGE, that sounds familiar :chuckle:
Post by: ICEMAN on April 19, 2010, 08:24:03 PM
I think the best way to send the message of what we want is to rally in their faces with signs and a bit of anger. Show some anger and force the discussion you want. The media already has decided all hunters are a bunch of whackos. So who cares about the image? Maybe bus angry hunters to commisioners homes and protest in their neighborhoods.
Investigate the private dealings and indescretions of anyone involved in the decision making processes.
Get every hunter and fisherman in the state to pay for our licenses and tags with pennies and nickels. Piss of vendors so much that wildlife will have to start selling to the public again. This is half the problem, they have discarded all fiscal and customer service contact with the hunters that they are free to screw with you from a distance.
Post the salaries and any and all publically available information that you can get your hands on about every employee of Wildlife, and post it on the internet.
Get a few hundred hunters to hang a BA at them from their parking lot.
Post by: Sporting_Man on April 20, 2010, 07:06:47 AM
With the above process, we need to be more present with comission and try to change things within. Someone mentioned monitoring them, especially have their special dealings under scope. This one is hard and I don't know how... :dunno:
Post by: singleshot12 on April 20, 2010, 07:37:33 AM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on April 20, 2010, 07:49:10 AM
I want: draw-only for eastern WA deer and elk for all user groups, general for west side. (like oregon)
I want: less harvest of bucks for more escapement and older age classes. (like we already do for eastern elk)
Bet these are not messages we all agree on.
I want: 2/3 of all WDFW employees deployed in the field, rather than 60% in Olympia.
I want: Department of Game separated out of WDFW, and the regulatory part of Habitat Program and threatened and endangered species conservation functions put into Ecology.
I want: every professional employee sent through an academy and commissioned to enforce hunting and fishing WACs (like ID and CO).
I want: ski areas, concert venues and other conflicting uses off wildlife areas.
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2010, 08:04:39 AM
I'm with Doublelung in wanting draw only hunting for eastern wa. deer and elk. But most people are not.
That is the problem. Everybody wants different things. The WDFW has a tough job trying to make everybody happy. I don't agree with some of the things they have done, but I also realize that what they are doing is trying to please those who whine the most.
Post by: Sporting_Man on April 20, 2010, 08:38:57 AM
- Wolves, tribal hunting, habitat loss... general public against hunters...
- Commercial and tribal regulations, sea lions, hatchery vs. native, etc. - just to mention a few...
Post by: Curly on April 20, 2010, 08:59:00 AM
But it is discouraging when it seems that the commission seems to listen more to the WDFW staff than the public......... I'm starting to think that mergeing WDFW, Parks, and DNR might be alright; but I'd like to try getting more people involved in flooding the commission members with letters first to see if they get it. (I'm still pissed about the commission's vote on the special permit changes).. >:(
Post by: Special T on April 20, 2010, 09:14:14 AM
1 I like the point of seperating the game aspect of WDFW from the endangerd speices stuff.
2 I like the idea of voting for the wdfw commision, with some kind of emphesis on hunters and fisherman getting more voice for thier pay... People are usually willing to pay the cost of a program if they can see the tangable benifits... I hate paying more but if the wdfw spen more time and doing the right things to improve hunting and fishing i'd be willing to pay more. :twocents:
I must say i like the first 3 points that dble lung had on his post. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on April 20, 2010, 09:38:35 AM
I think what most of us would like is more animals. I think that means reducing the amount of antlerless harvest, reducing road access in some units, and increasing the harvest of cougars, bears, coyotes, and wolves. Also, WDFW needs to stop taking away opportunity......look at what they did with the hound guys and coyote hunting and what they are talking about with hunting at night.
Post by: Galpster on April 20, 2010, 11:24:29 AM
1- elect the officials / or requirements to be able to have the position like stated already
2- reduce small buck (inmature) and anterless harvest - could have special hunts for the handicapped and youth to still take some of these animals
3- increase predator harvest
4- Department of Game separated out of WDFW
Not necessarily in that order but I believe that would have the most impact.
Please add or take away from!!
Post by: boneaddict on April 20, 2010, 11:38:36 AM
One suggestion would be to be part of organizations that do what you think or has a similiar mission to what you want. Being active on this site is just one part of that. THen there is the muledeer foundation, RMEF, WSB, Pheasants forever, Washington Trappers association etc. The bigger the group, the louder the squeek. Once again, ask the hound hunters and trappers what they know about not being heard.
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2010, 12:56:47 PM
I read Bobcats post in the recycle bin and wondered why he deleted it. It was pretty similiar to Doublelungs. Have to agree on the message before you can get it across. He who squeeks the loudest seems to get the prize in this state.
Well, I typed my post at the same time as Doublelung, but then when I posted it I read his, and it looked like I was just copying what he said.
As for what Curly said, that what we all want is "more animals," most people would probably agree with that by itself, but they also apparently don't want more animals at the expense of less hunting opportunity. So it's not easy to come up with a way to have more animals. The other problem in many areas is with more animals comes more crop damage and with that the WDFW is paying out more money to landowners.
There are some things that would give us more animals to hunt without reduced hunting opportunity, but these things more mostly out of the control of the WDFW. Tribal hunting/poaching is one thing, that if managed better could help to increase deer and elk numbers in certain areas. Another thing is a reduction of predators such as coyotes, cougars, and bears, but this has become harder to do with hounds and baiting taken away. One more thing that has a lot of potential, is we need more fire to create better habitat for deer and elk.
As hunters we should be supporting controlled burns on state and National Forest lands. I've seen many times where people, including hunters, will complain about controlled burns that the Forest Service has planned. After decades of putting out fires, we need to get our forests opened back up and healthy again, and as a result we will see a lot more game. So when you hear of a controlled burn in the works, or a wildfire that the forest service has decided to let burn, don't complain! :bash:
Post by: Viszla on April 20, 2010, 02:36:18 PM
Quote
As hunters we should be supporting controlled burns on state and National Forest lands. I've seen many times where people, including hunters, will complain about controlled burns that the Forest Service has planned. After decades of putting out fires, we need to get our forests opened back up and healthy again, and as a result we will see a lot more game. So when you hear of a controlled burn in the works, or a wildfire that the forest service has decided to let burn, don't complain!
I don't really understand where you are going with this. Maybe I need better understanding? Every forest fire I have seen has been very destructive and there are many areas that are still nothing but barren wastelands from previous fires. Also, most "controlled burnings" I have seen become un-controlled burnings.
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2010, 02:39:27 PM
QuoteAs hunters we should be supporting controlled burns on state and National Forest lands. I've seen many times where people, including hunters, will complain about controlled burns that the Forest Service has planned. After decades of putting out fires, we need to get our forests opened back up and healthy again, and as a result we will see a lot more game. So when you hear of a controlled burn in the works, or a wildfire that the forest service has decided to let burn, don't complain!
I don't really understand where you are going with this. Maybe I need better understanding? Every forest fire I have seen has been very destructive and there are many areas that are still nothing but barren wastelands from previous fires. Also, most "controlled burnings" I have seen become un-controlled burnings.
Exactly! You prove my point. Many people are uninformed on this issue. Are you familiar with the Entiat GMU in Chelan County? It burned up in, I believe, 1994. Now it is one of the best mule deer units in the state. Just one example. With more fires, we could have more good mule deer habitat, just like in the Entiat.
Also, as for controlled burns getting out of hand, it does happen, but for you to say "most" of them do couldn't be further from the truth. Maybe the ones you have seen ON THE NEWS, because the ones that go as they should, do not make the news.
Post by: Viszla on April 20, 2010, 02:44:58 PM
Here's an idea for the WDFW, they should go around and light the woods on fire. This is the fix to our mule deer herds! :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2010, 03:03:13 PM
Quote
Okay, what about the other side of Lake Chelan. Manson unit particularily. Also, when you compare the deer harvet before and after the fire you will see that the fires haven't helped out much.
I'd bet many hunters and most biologists would disagree with that.
Quote
Here's an idea for the WDFW, they should go around and light the woods on fire. This is the fix to our mule deer herds! :IBCOOL:
Great idea! Wish I would've thought of it.
Post by: bobcat on April 20, 2010, 03:10:26 PM
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/fire/prescribed-burning-plan/index.shtml (http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/fire/prescribed-burning-plan/index.shtml)
Quote
Positive Benefits for Wildlife
Prescribed fire activities produce many positive benefits for big game animals such as mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, and whitetailed deer. The absence of frequent low intensity fires in the landscape due to past fire suppression has caused a decline in forage quantity and quality in many areas of the Blue Mountains.. Also, with years of conifer encroachment, browse species such as bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, aspen, choke and bitter cherry, willow and other hardwoods species have declined or are essentially unavailable as forage. These hardwoods are an important source of high quality forage for deer and elk, especially as they prepare for winter, and again in the spring as they replenish lost body mass from the previous winter. Prescribed fire invigorates both hardwoods and native grass species, making them more palatable and nutritious for big game species. Prescribed fire conducted on big game winter ranges not only improves forage quality and quantity, but it can help keep deer and elk on public lands for longer periods and away from private lands where conflicts can occcur.
Lots more info out there if you Google either "prescribed burn" or "controlled burn."
Post by: Viszla on April 20, 2010, 03:46:43 PM
Quote
I'd bet many hunters and most biologists would disagree with that.
Yep, you are right, I need to give Scott Fitkin a call about that. :chuckle:
Sorry, don't mean to thread jack.
Post by: Gringo31 on April 20, 2010, 04:18:51 PM
The game wardens that lined the walls in those meetings had a much different opinion of how wolves should be managed than those presenting. As stated on here, the problem is that too many "officials" are in Olympia and not in the field or ....well they just don't have a clue.
I don't know that an election is a good thing. Pierce and King county will put a PETA member in there. While I realize there are lots of folks that enjoy wildlife besides hunters and fishermen, I do believe that we should get the biggest voice as we foot the bill. And no, I don't want to discuss the "outside dollars" that come in from specialized license plates.
Post by: ICEMAN on April 20, 2010, 07:59:53 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on April 20, 2010, 08:46:47 PM
Post by: Wacenturion on April 20, 2010, 11:16:22 PM
and Iceman's is a solution from the bottom....sorry couldn't resist. :chuckle:
Post by: Wacenturion on April 20, 2010, 11:44:41 PM
Talk is cheap......there are folks in WDFW making decisions that affect us, who's personal legacy will be that they attended a career's worth of meetings (3 decades worth), talked the good talk, and patted each other on the back. Every 10 years the lingo changes....new buzz words describing the latest management direction like resource allocation, responsive management, ecosystem management and others. How sad. If that was the result and contribution of one's career at WDFW, then we as sportsman just paid for a free ride on our license fees. That's what you are facing folks. Too top heavy with "wannabe" biologists/managers who contribute little in the overall good of wildlife management or recreational opportunity.
A complete direction change from the top is the only thing that will change that, and sorry to say, that's not going to happen any time soon..
Post by: Wacenturion on April 21, 2010, 12:16:51 AM
"A new two-pole endorsement - which allows anglers to fish with two rods in most lakes - costs an additional $24.50 for adults; $6.50 for seniors."
For as long as I can remember this was a sure way to earn a ticket, whether it was right or wrong. If indeed it is right from a fishery management perspective, leave it as is. If it is wrong and was stupid in the first place, then change it and allow two poles.
BUT..........changing it and charging those prices wreaks of "not sure what to do, but we can justify it if we get more money by allowing it. That moronic approach to management should tell you just what good hands our resource is in. Unbelievable!
Post by: Gringo31 on April 21, 2010, 05:12:42 AM
Post by: flatbkman on April 21, 2010, 07:19:56 AM
Do like those (the wolf advocates as an example) go about it. Have at least person assigned to each of the WDFW meetings to talk about a specific point that we as customers of the department want addressed. During their presentations at the meetings have them present to the commission signed petitions for support of their talking point. In addition to the specific persons assigned to the meetings, hire an attorney to be present at each meeting and have them present in legal terms exactly what we want done, and let the commission know if they don't listen to and accept our ideas and wants that legal proceedings may be involved in order to get them to see things our way.
Post by: Special T on April 21, 2010, 10:16:35 AM
I like the idea because it provides consistency and is brief in the time allotted.
Post by: flatbkman on April 21, 2010, 01:30:20 PM
Post by: Galpster on April 21, 2010, 04:57:29 PM
Just some thoughts