Post by: jackelope on August 15, 2011, 04:45:36 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
August 15, 2011
Contact: WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
Help shape future hunting seasons
online or at meetings this month
OLYMPIA - Hunters and other members of the public will have an opportunity to help shape 2012-14 hunting seasons at a series of public "open house" meetings planned by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) this month.
The meetings are scheduled to run from 7-9 p.m. on the following dates and locations:
Aug. 22 - Federal Way - Federal Way Community Center, 876 S. 333rd St., Alder & Birch meeting rooms
Aug. 23 - Centralia - Edison Place Event Center, 201 N. Rock St., Edison Room
Aug. 24 - Spokane - The Lincoln Center, 1316 N. Lincoln St., Monroe Ballroom
Aug. 25 - Yakima - Clarion Hotel & Conference Center, 1507 N. First St., Selah-Wapato meeting rooms.
The public can also comment on hunting season proposals via an on-line survey, available at http://bit.ly/qZ6EMZ (http://bit.ly/qZ6EMZ) through Sept. 20.
Dave Ware, WDFW game program manager, said public comments received at the meetings and through the survey will play an important role in shaping hunting seasons and associated hunting regulations for 2012-14.
"We want to hear people’s concerns, especially those that address a significant conservation or management issue," Ware said. "In keeping with the Governor’s Rule Moratorium, the department will focus on emergent issues that relate to goals and strategies identified in the 2009-15 Game Management Plan."
The Game Management Plan, along with scoping criteria for the 2012-14 season-setting process, is posted on WDFW’s website at the address listed above. Issues currently under consideration by the department for upcoming seasons include:
Adjusting cougar seasons.
Setting spring black bear seasons.
Increasing fall turkey hunting participation.
Eliminating the elk tag restriction for special permit applications.
Ware said comments received at the public meetings and from the on-line survey will be used to develop specific recommendations for 2012-14 hunting seasons, which will be available for further review next January.
Final recommendations will be presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for adoption next spring.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 15, 2011, 08:05:57 PM
Post by: Special T on August 15, 2011, 08:19:46 PM
I think the method of estimation of cougar numbers is lacking. It is my understanding that the WDFW uses harvest # to determine the quantity of cougar in an area. This method is inexpensive but prone to poor correlation of actual population #. I think some kind of pursuit only season with hounds requiring documentation is a good way to gain population estimates at little cost to the state yet gives houndsmen an opportunity to train dogs.
My Bear comments
I think the WDFW needs to do a better job of educating politicians as well as the public as to the benefits of hound and bait hunting. Treed bears are easier to determine sex, and baited bears (especially spring) are easier to determine if they have cubs. I know that if i am in the woods, hunting under current rules, I will shoot the first legal bear that steps in front of me... Good management and conservation NEEDS baiting and Hound hunting.
I think this survey is important and we should make our case heard... :twocents:
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 15, 2011, 08:23:23 PM
Here is the link again -> http://bit.ly/qZ6EMZ (http://bit.ly/qZ6EMZ)
PS: I watched the august 5th cougar meeting on TV today and not one person was in favor of increasing hunting opportunity. It was all hikers complaining they had never seen a cougar in the wild so there must not be any left. SPEAK UP!
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on August 15, 2011, 08:24:58 PM
Post by: FC on August 15, 2011, 08:26:31 PM
Post by: fair-chase on August 15, 2011, 08:46:25 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 15, 2011, 08:51:10 PM
PS: I watched the august 5th cougar meeting on TV today and not one person was in favor of increasing hunting opportunity. It was all hikers complaining they had never seen a cougar in the wild so there must not be any left. SPEAK UP!There could be ten times as many cougars and the hikers probably still wouldn't see them. The hikers are usually in groups, move too fast, make too much noise, hike at the wrong time of day, only hike on trails, etc.........
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on August 15, 2011, 08:58:10 PM
Done.PS: I watched the august 5th cougar meeting on TV today and not one person was in favor of increasing hunting opportunity. It was all hikers complaining they had never seen a cougar in the wild so there must not be any left. SPEAK UP!There could be ten times as many cougars and the hikers probably still wouldn't see them. The hikers are usually in groups, move too fast, make too much noise, hike at the wrong time of day, only hike on trails, etc.........
:chuckle: There may have been a letter sent to the commission stating such things but don't let that stop you from mentioning it also.
Post by: Kain on August 15, 2011, 10:12:24 PM
If they are reducing hunter opportunities based on non-biological or safety reasons then they are not complying with the law.
Quote
RCW 77.04.012
Mandate of department and commission.
Wildlife, fish, and shellfish are the property of the state. The commission, director, and the department shall preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish in state waters and offshore waters.
The department shall conserve the wildlife and food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources in a manner that does not impair the resource. In a manner consistent with this goal, the department shall seek to maintain the economic well-being and stability of the fishing industry in the state. The department shall promote orderly fisheries and shall enhance and improve recreational and commercial fishing in this state.
The commission may authorize the taking of wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish only at times or places, or in manners or quantities, as in the judgment of the commission does not impair the supply of these resources.
The commission shall attempt to maximize the public recreational game fishing and hunting opportunities of all citizens, including juvenile, disabled, and senior citizens.
Recognizing that the management of our state wildlife, food fish, game fish, and shellfish resources depends heavily on the assistance of volunteers, the department shall work cooperatively with volunteer groups and individuals to achieve the goals of this title to the greatest extent possible.
Nothing in this title shall be construed to infringe on the right of a private property owner to control the owner's private property.
[2000 c 107 § 2; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 5; 1975 1st ex.s. c 183 § 1; 1949 c 112 § 3, part; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-201, part. Formerly RCW 75.08.012, 43.25.020.]
Notes:
State policy regarding improvement of recreational salmon fishing: See note following RCW 77.65.150.
Post by: Kain on August 16, 2011, 07:34:45 AM
Quote
Issue Scoping Guidelines
Under the Governor’s Rule Moratorium, changes to regulations that are 1) not necessary for conservation, or 2) have not been specifically requested by those being regulated (hunters), should not be submitted for consideration.
SOOOOOO awesome. Did you guys read that line? This is what happens when you remind them of their legislative mandate. Good day for hunters and a bad day for anti hunters. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on August 16, 2011, 07:35:42 AM
Post by: BENCHLEG on August 17, 2011, 12:40:57 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 17, 2011, 12:54:02 PM
My cougar commentsYeah nicely said !!!! :tup:
I think the method of estimation of cougar numbers is lacking. It is my understanding that the WDFW uses harvest # to determine the quantity of cougar in an area. This method is inexpensive but prone to poor correlation of actual population #. I think some kind of pursuit only season with hounds requiring documentation is a good way to gain population estimates at little cost to the state yet gives houndsmen an opportunity to train dogs.
My Bear comments
I think the WDFW needs to do a better job of educating politicians as well as the public as to the benefits of hound and bait hunting. Treed bears are easier to determine sex, and baited bears (especially spring) are easier to determine if they have cubs. I know that if i am in the woods, hunting under current rules, I will shoot the first legal bear that steps in front of me... Good management and conservation NEEDS baiting and Hound hunting.
I think this survey is important and we should make our case heard... :twocents:
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on August 17, 2011, 01:35:21 PM
Post by: Snapshot on August 18, 2011, 08:52:18 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 18, 2011, 11:40:30 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 18, 2011, 12:33:10 PM
Post by: NWWABOWHNTR on August 23, 2011, 08:43:33 AM
Post by: Snapshot on August 23, 2011, 08:49:05 AM
Bigger shame was the amount of people who showed up for the meeting last night in Federal Way, maybe 25 people. I will say that bowhunters were there in force though!Yeah, for a meeting held only 15 miles or so from the state's population center it was a pathetic turnout.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 23, 2011, 08:58:38 AM
Boy was that the biggest joke I've seen. I've been filling out these scoping issues for at least the last 3 before this one and this one had hardly anything in it. Based on this the changes for teh next 3 year cycle will be minimal, which is too bad.
I would have to disagree with your last sentence. Can anyone remember ANY good changes made by them lately? (The last 30 years)
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 23, 2011, 09:17:16 AM
Boy was that the biggest joke I've seen. I've been filling out these scoping issues for at least the last 3 before this one and this one had hardly anything in it. Based on this the changes for teh next 3 year cycle will be minimal, which is too bad.
I would have to disagree with your last sentence. Can anyone remember ANY good changes made by them lately? (The last 30 years)
I think they're moving in the right direction regarding cougar seasons. That's one positive change.
Post by: Kain on August 23, 2011, 09:41:48 AM
Quote
As outlined in the timeline below, there will be two opportunities for you to provide your input during the process.Your first opportunity to participate will be in late-August. The Department will ask for your help identifying the major issues that are important to you for the next three-year hunting season cycle.
Quote
Under the Governor’s Rule Moratorium, changes to regulations that are 1) not necessary for
conservation, or 2) have not been specifically requested by those being regulated (hunters), should
not be submitted for consideration.
Post by: pianoman9701 on August 23, 2011, 09:44:43 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on August 23, 2011, 09:56:54 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 23, 2011, 02:37:27 PM
At the beginning of the meeting they explained that because of budget cuts there were only going to be 4 meetings this year for input and that the scoping survey was a very important tool to receive input. There are only six issues that they feel are critical this year, there were a lot of things that they thought needed attention but they could only deal with a few because of budget restrictions so these were the ones they thought they could get handle with the budget they have.
Dave said that we should fill out the additional comments at the end of the survey on issues that weren't covered in the survey. He said the townhall style meetings are great but the written comments at the end of the survey are very powerful also.
Post by: Gringo31 on August 23, 2011, 03:01:42 PM
Quote
Although the purpose and rationale for the spring bear hunt in Northeastern Washington is based on nuisance and damage activity by bears in the spring, there may be a secondary effect to deer fawn survival. Bears are known to prey on deer fawns in the spring. In most cases bear predation on deer fawns does not limit deer populations. It is unknown if bear predation on deer fawns in northeastern Washington is impacting the overall deer population growth. Nonetheless, increased spring bear harvest may have an ancillary impact to deer fawn survival.
I read it to mean that we try to limit nuisance bears which may increase fawn numbers but bears eating fawns usually don't hurt fawn numbers but we're not sure. :dunno:
Post by: Kain on August 23, 2011, 03:02:57 PM
The turn out for the meeting was a little disappointing but the good side was I got to speak with each member one on one and voice my concerns. Dave Ware and Jerry Nelson were good listeners and at the end of the meeting each representative did an overview of what they heard for comments.
At the beginning of the meeting they explained that because of budget cuts there were only going to be 4 meetings this year for input and that the scoping survey was a very important tool to receive input. There are only six issues that they feel are critical this year, there were a lot of things that they thought needed attention but they could only deal with a few because of budget restrictions so these were the ones they thought they could get handle with the budget they have.
Dave said that we should fill out the additional comments at the end of the survey on issues that weren't covered in the survey. He said the townhall style meetings are great but the written comments at the end of the survey are very powerful also.
Thanks for going and the report. I plan on speaking tonight at the meeting in Centralia.
Post by: Rainier10 on August 24, 2011, 09:16:12 AM
Post by: Kain on August 24, 2011, 09:42:03 AM
It was not the format I was thinking it would be. First this was not a Wildlife Commission meeting. It was a meeting with WDFW to help shape the recommendations they send to the committee. Second it was just an open meeting to discuss the issues with whichever WDFW rep was for your area or issue. There was no presentation other than the poster boards and handouts for each item that was on the survey.
I really only got to talk about the cougar issue with Dr Martorello. It sounds very likely that we will get a longer cougar season without weapons restrictions in the units that were under harvest goals. He said again that those changes were not made for any management reasons and were made as a policy change that was floating the idea of switching all hunting to weapon specific seasons. The bear hunters raised enough hell to get their season saved but cougar hunters were not vocal enough....until now. Makes no sense to me to change one and not the other but hey thats government. He seems like he understood and even agreed with most of our concerns. They read this site, every email they receive and even read the facebook comments that we post. They are not allowed to respond of course but said that might be changing. He said they have one more chance to get the pilot program back and that could be it. I told him to let us know if there was any way we could help.
I also talked to him about the cougar incidents not making the website as is require by law. He said they are being counted on a master list but just are not making the website. I guess they just get to pick and choose which laws they follow since it requires them to post those incidents within 10 days. :dunno:
Very low turnout by hunters. Maybe six or seven of us but Dave Ware was there and explained the process for this years season setting. Hunters can request changes to the season that are not part of the survey. So we need to identify any pressing issues that we want changed and get our arguments in order then leave comments on the survey. They mentioned they had nearly 1900 so far so that is good.
Post by: sirfunkeybut on August 24, 2011, 09:43:49 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on August 24, 2011, 11:26:51 AM