Post by: Kain on December 03, 2011, 03:14:47 PM
Quote
December 03, 2011
Contact: Commission Office, (360) 902-2267
WDFW Public Affairs, (360) 902-2259
Fish and Wildlife Commission adopts plan
to conserve and manage gray wolves
OLYMPIA - After four years of development and extensive public review, the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission today unanimously adopted a plan that will guide state conservation and management of gray wolves in Washington state.
The citizen commission, which sets policy for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), approved the Wolf Conservation and Management Plan at a public meeting in Olympia.
Key provisions of the plan establish recovery objectives for gray wolves in three regions in Washington, along with procedures for addressing predation on livestock and impacts on ungulates such as deer, elk and caribou.
Prior to the final vote, the commission approved several changes to the draft plan, including one that modified the distribution of breeding wolf pairs needed to remove wolves from the state’s endangered species list.
Once abundant in the Pacific Northwest, gray wolves are currently classified by the state as endangered throughout Washington. They are also listed under federal law as endangered in the western two-thirds of the state.
WDFW began developing the wolf-management plan in 2007, anticipating that gray wolves would naturally migrate into the state from Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and British Columbia. Since then, five wolf packs have been documented in the state - three in northeastern Washington and two in the Cascade Mountains.
During the past four years, the plan developed by WDFW in conjunction with a 17-member citizen Wolf Working Group has been the focus of 23 public meetings, 65,000 written comments and a blind scientific peer review.
"This plan establishes recovery goals for wolves, while also giving wildlife managers and individuals the tools they need to protect livestock and wildlife populations," said Miranda Wecker, commission chair. "The goal is that wolves will no longer need special status in our state and can be managed as part of the overall ecosystem."
Key elements of the plan approved by the commission include:
Recovery goals: The plan establishes a recovery objective of 15 breeding pairs of wolves that are present in the state for at least three years. Before gray wolves can be removed from the state’s endangered species list, at least four of those breeding pairs must be verified in Eastern Washington, four in the northern Cascades, four in the southern Cascades/Northwest coastal area and three others anywhere in the state. The commission also allows WDFW to initiate action to delist gray wolves if 18 breeding pairs are documented during a single year.
Livestock protection: The plan provides a variety of management measures - from technical assistance for landowners to lethal removal - to control wolves that prey on livestock. The plan also establishes conditions for compensating ranchers who lose livestock to wolf predation.
Wildlife protection: The plan allows WDFW to use lethal and non-lethal measures to manage wolf predation on at-risk deer, elk and caribou populations if wolf numbers reach or exceed the recovery objective within a region where predation occurs. The commission modified the definition of "at-risk" populations to give WDFW more flexibility in responding to the effect of wolf predation on those animals.
WDFW is not allowed to import wolves from other states or seek to increase the wolf population to historic levels under the parameters set for the new wolf management plan by an associated environmental impact statement.
All aspects of the state’s plan will take immediate effect east of state highways 97, 17 and 395, where gray wolves were removed from federal protection last May. In the rest of the state, federal law will take precedence over the state plan until wolves are delisted under the federal Endangered Species Act in that area.
The draft Wolf Conservation and Management Plan is posted on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/. The final plan, incorporating amendments adopted by the commission, will be posted on the site by mid-January.
In a separate action, the commission approved proposals by WDFW to acquire land in Mason, Wahkiakum, Grant and Asotin counties to preserve critical habitat for fish and wildlife. The commission also approved a timber-thinning project proposed by WDFW on the Scotch Creek and Sinlahekin wildlife areas.
In addition, WDFW staff briefed the commission on new sportfishing rules proposed for the 2012-13 season, including changes that would declassify northern pike as a gamefish and move the opening day of the lowland lake fishing season to the fourth Saturday in April.
WDFW is accepting public comments through Dec. 30 on those sportfishing proposals, which are posted at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/regulations/rule_proposals/ on the department’s website. The commission will hear public comments on those proposals at a meeting set for Jan. 6-7 in Olympia and is scheduled to vote on those proposals during a public meeting Feb. 3-4.
Additional information about the commission and upcoming meetings is available online at http://wdfw.wa.gov/commission/.
Post by: Fishmasterdan on December 03, 2011, 04:44:26 PM
Post by: high country on December 03, 2011, 05:20:07 PM
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 03, 2011, 05:25:34 PM
Post by: wraithen on December 03, 2011, 05:59:40 PM
Post by: wence5 on December 03, 2011, 08:56:07 PM
Quote from: Hunting7mm link=topic=87990.msg 1105694#msg 1105694 date=1322961934
I'm new to this site but I am a sportsman and have been for many years. I hunt and fish year round I just move from season to season. I have already seen a drop in the deer population since hound hunting was removed in 1996, so why introduce another predator or should I say why open our doors to another predator. Hunters manage the wildlife populations and spend countless amounts of money to do so. Isn't Washington our state. Why should we let wolves even get established? Washington is already hurting financially. Will a drop in hunting licenses help, do to the low numbers of game animals because of wolves. I just think some people should use a little more common sense before making policy.
In 1996 the anti hunting community put forth a campaign of lies to get the non hunters to pass a ban on hound hunting, which they did, and now we are noticing big game numbers on the decline, so we have seen shorter hunting seasons, more permit hunts, and higher tag prices. Now the commission is made up of some of the type of folks that brought us the hound hunting ban make policy on wolves, and if the commission wants 15 bps of wolves you can bet your a$$ there are already more than 15 bps in the state even as the ink dries on the new plan passed today. Ladies and gentlemen, IMHO this is part of the agenda to end sport hunting, and we as hunters have just witnessed the beginning of the end of our heritage today.
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 03, 2011, 09:02:16 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 03, 2011, 09:52:50 PM
Post by: mulehunter on December 03, 2011, 10:11:26 PM
Boycott buying any type of Washington hunting/fishing licenses, tags etc. Don't buy a Discover Pass or support the state parks, nothing. Save your money and go out of state. Show those people in Olympia that we mean business and are sick and tired of being screwed all the time. They raise our fees and shorten our seasons and change the dates. Would the last sportsman/women leaving Washington turn off the lights please !:yeah: I am with u. How can we talk to 250,000 hunter to agree with all of us.
Post by: wraithen on December 03, 2011, 10:12:51 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 03, 2011, 10:19:38 PM
I personally think you can't get a tenth of that number in on it. Even if everyone stopped hunting and fishing it would just ensure a quicker victory for the antis. The better question is how do we beat them at their own game?
A bounty on them, the greenies ! :tup:
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 03, 2011, 10:46:58 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 03, 2011, 11:32:13 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 04, 2011, 07:11:05 AM
When the deer and elk are gone, we just switch over to hunting coyotes, bears, and wolves.
I already hunt wolves............................................................with my camera. I'm waiting for that one picture !!
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2011, 07:42:42 AM
I don't think you can get enough people to quit buying hunting and fishing licenses to make a difference. Once there are fewer deer and elk, then you will see license sales drop off like they have in Idaho. I'm not trying to bust the party, I'm just trying to be realistic.
I for one cannot afford to stop hunting because that is what I do for a living. The town where I live depends on income from hunters, few businesses in Colville will advocate stopping hunting. The Chamber actively works to attract hunters to our area.
I hope we can find a solution to make a difference, but I don't think a few who don't buy licenses will make a difference. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 04, 2011, 08:11:50 AM
I hate to be the stick in the mud, but saying you will have an effect by not buying a license is probably unrealistic.
I don't think you can get enough people to quit buying hunting and fishing licenses to make a difference. Once there are fewer deer and elk, then you will see license sales drop off like they have in Idaho. I'm not trying to bust the party, I'm just trying to be realistic.
I for one cannot afford to stop hunting because that is what I do for a living. The town where I live depends on income from hunters, few businesses in Colville will advocate stopping hunting. The Chamber actively works to attract hunters to our area.
I hope we can find a solution to make a difference, but I don't think a few who don't buy licenses will make a difference. :twocents:
I know. I was just being facetious or flippant. To bad we don't control the gubmint.
Post by: wence5 on December 04, 2011, 08:47:12 AM
Quote from: bearpaw link=topic=87990.msg 1106108#msg 1106108 date=1323013362
I hate to be the stick in the mud, but saying you will have an effect by not buying a license is probably unrealistic.
I don't think you can get enough people to quit buying hunting and fishing licenses to make a difference. Once there are fewer deer and elk, then you will see license sales drop off like they have in Idaho. I'm not trying to bust the party, I'm just trying to be realistic.
I for one cannot afford to stop hunting because that is what I do for a living. The town where I live depends on income from hunters, few businesses in Colville will advocate stopping hunting. The Chamber actively works to attract hunters to our area.
I hope we can find a solution to make a difference, but I don't think a few who don't buy licenses will make a difference. :two cents:
I agree with you bearpaw, we won't get every hunter, fisherman, and outdoorsman to stop purchasing licenses and tags. Even if we were able to do that, the antis win, they stopped sport hunting, so you don't need a gun anymore, so we can go to work on that front. After all the 2A is about hunting, NOT!
Post by: CedarPants on December 04, 2011, 09:03:22 AM
I hate to be the stick in the mud, but saying you will have an effect by not buying a license is probably unrealistic.
I don't think you can get enough people to quit buying hunting and fishing licenses to make a difference. Once there are fewer deer and elk, then you will see license sales drop off like they have in Idaho. I'm not trying to bust the party, I'm just trying to be realistic.
I for one cannot afford to stop hunting because that is what I do for a living. The town where I live depends on income from hunters, few businesses in Colville will advocate stopping hunting. The Chamber actively works to attract hunters to our area.
I hope we can find a solution to make a difference, but I don't think a few who don't buy licenses will make a difference. :twocents:
I agree with this as well.
My biggest concern is that we no longer have an agency in place that has any interest whatsoever in us as sportsmen. None. As a group, our interests no longer mean anything to them. I have a good friend whose family owns a farm in PA, and I will be hunting there in a couple years. When you go to PA's game agency website, they have an actual live countdown to deer season and they get all the sportsmen pumped for the upcoming season. The game agency does that. I mentioned to my friend that it blows my mind that the game agency over there is so in tune with the sportsmen of the state. My friend said it blew her mind that ours, isn't.
It will also only cost me about $100 to hunt deer there as a non-resident
Post by: Fishmasterdan on December 04, 2011, 09:35:26 AM
Boycott buying any type of Washington hunting/fishing licenses, tags etc. Don't buy a Discover Pass or support the state parks, nothing. Save your money and go out of state. Show those people in Olympia that we mean business and are sick and tired of being screwed all the time. They raise our fees and shorten our seasons and change the dates. Would the last sportsman/women leaving Washington turn off the lights please !
This is already my policy. I will pay the ticket before I support the non hunting agenda this state has become. Why should I pay to support the anti hunting?? It is rediculous that anyone will purchase a pass to hunt in areas we already paid for, or that any money we put forth toward the enviroment goes towards idiots that require 5 employed people to review a prospectors effort of cleaning a stream (HPA).
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 04, 2011, 10:01:33 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 04, 2011, 10:07:35 AM
dude I grew up in P.A and when I moved out west I was sick on how the game is managed compared to the east coast ...Geeeez we have mountains and more land than we can explore ..You would think it would be all they make it out to be by coming out west ...or is it just WASHINGTON ?? Yeah thats it Washington!!!!!!!!I hate to be the stick in the mud, but saying you will have an effect by not buying a license is probably unrealistic.
I don't think you can get enough people to quit buying hunting and fishing licenses to make a difference. Once there are fewer deer and elk, then you will see license sales drop off like they have in Idaho. I'm not trying to bust the party, I'm just trying to be realistic.
I for one cannot afford to stop hunting because that is what I do for a living. The town where I live depends on income from hunters, few businesses in Colville will advocate stopping hunting. The Chamber actively works to attract hunters to our area.
I hope we can find a solution to make a difference, but I don't think a few who don't buy licenses will make a difference. :twocents:
I agree with this as well.
My biggest concern is that we no longer have an agency in place that has any interest whatsoever in us as sportsmen. None. As a group, our interests no longer mean anything to them. I have a good friend whose family owns a farm in PA, and I will be hunting there in a couple years. When you go to PA's game agency website, they have an actual live countdown to deer season and they get all the sportsmen pumped for the upcoming season. The game agency does that. I mentioned to my friend that it blows my mind that the game agency over there is so in tune with the sportsmen of the state. My friend said it blew her mind that ours, isn't.
It will also only cost me about $100 to hunt deer there as a non-resident
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2011, 10:16:18 AM
You guys can try a boycott, I have nothing against it, but I don't think it will work yet.
In the meantime there are other things to possibly try:
- Lobby the commission to make the WDFW place more of an emphasis on hunting and management of hunted species.
- The main WDFW webpage is becoming less about hunting every year, this needs to change.
- Get more rural communities actively promoting hunting.
- Get more rural politicians actively promoting hunting.
- We should insist on the same emphasis on hunting as in other states.
Just a few ideas, but to reverse what has been going on the last 10 years is going to take an extensive effort. :twocents:
Post by: CedarPants on December 04, 2011, 10:25:38 AM
Just look at their Vision: "Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems" .... and just below that: "WDFW defines “Conservation” as: Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs"
They might as well just put "for our vision, please see www.conservationnorthwest.com"
Post by: lemondog on December 04, 2011, 10:26:49 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on December 04, 2011, 10:48:24 AM
Quote
Wildlife protection: The plan allows WDFW to use lethal and non-lethal measures to manage wolf predation on at-risk deer, elk and caribou populations if wolf numbers reach or exceed the recovery objective within a region where predation occurs.Due to the Woodland Caribou already being non-existent in the NE corner, and the likelihood of the wolf numbers IN THAT REGION being at or near the "recovery objective".....
:mgun: :mgun2:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 04, 2011, 10:53:38 AM
:yeah: especially this part: "The main WDFW webpage is becoming less about hunting every year, this needs to change"
Just look at their Vision: "Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems" .... and just below that: "WDFW defines “Conservation” as: Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs"
They might as well just put "for our vision, please see www.conservationnorthwest.com"
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
and from Big Game forever this morning.....
NEWS FLASH
Washington State Welcomes Wolves
Folks,
We told you the feds want wolves in the states that hold 97.5% of all elk in America. They are doing it one state at a time. Breaking news, you can now add Washington State as an official “wolf state.”
The Washington State Fish and Game Commission just approved wolf proliferation in their state. For a detailed account of the commission decision to adopt a “wolf management plan” visit http://nwsportsmanmag.com/2011/12/03/stressing-flexibility-addressing-hunter-livestock-concerns-wa-fwc-approves-wolf-plan/
While some changes were made to the wolf plan to appease concerned sportsmen and livestock owners, one has to wonder if the Washington Commission still missed the big picture.
Assurances have been made before. Commitments to protect wildlife and livestock were made in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. But when those states fulfilled their commitments on wolf recovery, delisting of wolves and wildlife protection was blocked by USFWS and anti-sportsmen/anti-livestock groups. Even when wildlife populations plummeted, USFWS refused to allow for promised 10(J) management actions which would have protected those populations.
Folks, wolves, the ESA and the federal government is a destructive combination for wildlife. George Santayana once said,"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Here is one quote from the article that illustrates the fundamental disconnect inherent in the commission's reasoning: [Commission chairwoman Miranda Wecker] pointed out that currently the state has an "excellent relationship" with USFWS, and called the clusterfunkle of management in the Northern Rockies, which saw wolves exceed recovery goals in 2002 but state management delayed by lawsuits, "absolutely terrible."
Another quote: Phil Anderson, director of the Department of Fish & Wildlife, said that in discussions with the USFWS, the Feds sounded "anxious to downlist wolves as soon as possible, anxious to turn over management to the state."
Here is the truth, USFWS is a great facilitator of wolf expansion, but a huge impediment when it comes time to fulfill commitments for state management of wolves. More importantly, legally and politically the system must be changed if there is any hope for a different outcome for Washington State. USFWS can do nothing to stop the endless cycles of litigation that will prevent wolf management when it is most needed. The open-ended nature of ESA litigation allows almost anyone to stop wolf management, notwithstanding commitments by USFWS and notwithstanding the provisions within Washington State’s management plan. The current system does not work to protect wildlife.
Bottom line, the Feds continue to make progress in their plan to push wolves into 97.5% of all elk in America. If we don’t stop these plans, if the system is not fundamentally changed by returning management authority to the states, the future of wildlife in America looks bleak.
Post by: bearpaw on December 04, 2011, 11:01:08 AM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on December 04, 2011, 11:07:54 AM
Post by: wence5 on December 04, 2011, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: BOWHUNTER45 link=topic=87990.msg 1106275#msg 1106275 date=1323025674
Seriously all I hope for is for the dept. to read some of these comments and see what we are saying .. Maybe then they might realize its getting serious :tup: :yeah:
Why hope that WDFW and the commission reads our comments here? We should all be writing them to make it perfectly clear we are all made as hell and not going to just sit
here and take whatever bull flop they decide to dump on us. This has me VERY pissed! Boycott or not, I am going to re-evaluate whether I want to continue to spend my
time and hard earned money to hunt in this state. When they don't listen, or quite frankly give a S### about what the customer wants, why should they give a S###
about the quality of the hunting conditions, or big game management, why should I continue to do business with them. What they do care about is CASH!
Post by: wraithen on December 04, 2011, 01:24:32 PM
Post by: KillBilly on December 04, 2011, 01:29:01 PM
On the flip side I can't believe the Department wants the Herds decimated because they would be out of jobs and money to manage anything but a few laying hens.
More letters to the Commission won't make a difference. Letters to the Governor might and letters to the Feds might. I think that only the Governor could overide the decision. Given that we are coming into an election year I doubt that she would care and on top of that we cannot get the candidates to answer a few simple questions.
I don't have the answer but I will not buy any license or tags next year....
Post by: CedarPants on December 04, 2011, 01:33:30 PM
Question is, would we be able to unite as a group and accomplish this? I have my doubts. Every time we get angry about something and start discussing how to address it, the discussion fizzles out when we start talking about actually DOING something about it. Always.
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 04, 2011, 01:42:34 PM
Post by: Hunting7mm on December 04, 2011, 01:45:21 PM
We have the right to peaceful protest don't we? Nearly 10,000 members on Hunt-WA, correct? That'd be a lot of voices on Gregoire's doorstep if organized properly with the right message.
Question is, would we be able to unite as a group and accomplish this? I have my doubts. Every time we get angry about something and start discussing how to address it, the discussion fizzles out when we start talking about actually DOING something about it. Always.
Post by: mulehunter on December 04, 2011, 02:34:12 PM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DUWo9yNLwQxk&v=UWo9yNLwQxk&gl=US
Post by: Miles on December 04, 2011, 11:30:39 PM
:yeah: especially this part: "The main WDFW webpage is becoming less about hunting every year, this needs to change"
Just look at their Vision: "Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems" .... and just below that: "WDFW defines “Conservation” as: Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs"
They might as well just put "for our vision, please see www.conservationnorthwest.com"
Let's play a little game... :chuckle:
You (Cedarpants) are a new employee for the WDFW and because of your absolute "awesomeness", you have been tasked with creating a "new" vision for the WDFW. :tup:
Let's hear it.
Post by: CedarPants on December 05, 2011, 07:06:56 AM
:yeah: especially this part: "The main WDFW webpage is becoming less about hunting every year, this needs to change"
Just look at their Vision: "Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems" .... and just below that: "WDFW defines “Conservation” as: Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs"
They might as well just put "for our vision, please see www.conservationnorthwest.com"
Let's play a little game... :chuckle:
You (Cedarpants) are a new employee for the WDFW and because of your absolute "awesomeness", you have been tasked with creating a "new" vision for the WDFW. :tup:
Let's hear it.
I honestly don't think the wheel needs to be re-invented here. More to the point, I believe its a matter of getting back to basics and focusing on the roots of the relationship between a game agency and sportsmen/women.
We only need to look a mere 75 miles east of Washington to see an example of a game agency that is designed with sportsmen/women in mind. Take a look at Montana's mission, vision, and goals. I've highlighted some key points:
Our Mission
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, through its employees and citizen commission, provides for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks, and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations.
Vision for the 21st Century
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks will provide the leadership necessary to create a commitment in the hearts and minds of people to ensure that, in our second century, and in partnership with many others, we will sustain our diverse fish, wildlife, and parks resources and the quality recreational opportunities that are essential to a high quality of life for Montanans and our guests.
Guiding Principles
We understand that serving the people of Montana to achieve this vision is both a privilege and a responsibility. We also understand that we cannot achieve our vision alone. The following principles will guide FWP:
•We will maintain the long-term viability of Montana's natural, cultural, and recreational resources.
•We will actively involve people in decisions that affect them; help people to participate by providing them with credible and objective information; and, develop programs with a clear understanding of public expectations for FWP service.
•We will serve as an advocate for responsible management and for equitable allocation of public use of the limited resources which we are entrusted to manage.
•We will manage fish and wildlife resources with pride in Montana's hunting and angling heritage.
•We will create and strengthen working partnerships with individuals, organized groups, and other natural, historic, and cultural resource management agencies.
•We will use innovation and technology to improve our services.
Goals
Goal A: Create a work environment where priorities are clear; the decision-making process is efficient and effective; and, where employees feel a sense of accountability, value, and satisfaction in their achievements and their contributions to the agency mission.
•FWP will effectively and efficiently utilize our human and financial resources, while fulfilling our role in natural and cultural resource issues.
•FWP will complete strategic and six-year plans for fish, wildlife, and parks programs to clarify public expectations, allocate resources and define a common direction for FWP and our partners.
•FWP will foster personal and professional growth of employees by developing and using meaningful employee agreements and performance standards.
•FWP will create and maintain a professional, diverse, and responsive workforce by improving employee recruitment, selection, and career development.
Goal B: Provide quality opportunities for public appreciation and enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and parks resources.
•FWP management decisions will equitably balance the interests of hunters, anglers and other outdoor recreationists, visitors to historic sites, landowners, the general public and the needs of Montana's fish, wildlife, and parks resources.
•FWP will manage its wildlife program to balance game damage, human/wildlife conflicts and landowner/recreations conflicts with the perpetuation and protection of wildlife populations.
•FWP management decisions recognize that Montana's agricultural community is integral to the management of Montana's fish and wildlife populations and the habitats that support them.
•FWP will provide diverse and equitable opportunities for people to experience a variety of outdoor recreation and historic and cultural experiences on public lands and in cooperation with private landowners.
•FWP will provide quality services for people who use Montana state parks.
•FWP will fairly and equitably enforce all regulations and maintain public safety at FWP sites.
Goal C: Maintain and enhance the health of Montana's natural environment and the vitality of our fish, wildlife, cultural, and historic resources through the 21st century.
•FWP programs will be consistent with ecologically sound and sustainable practices and managed within funding capabilities.
•FWP will provide and support programs to conserve and enhance high quality aquatic habitat and protect native aquatic species.
•FWP will provide and support programs to conserve and enhance Montana's terrestrial ecosystems and the diversity of species inhabiting them.
•FWP will provide and support programs for the long-term protection and enhancement of Montana's cultural, historic, prehistoric, and natural resources.
Goal D: Emphasize education, communication, and responsible behavior to afford citizens the opportunity to better understand and participate in the decision-making process that sustain our natural, recreational, and cultural resources for future generations.
•FWP will help Montana citizens to understand and participate in FWP's decision-making processes.
•FWP will provide regulations, program information, and educational materials that are accurate, reliable, and easy for people to use and understand.
•FWP will help people to be aware of and appreciate Montana's fish, wildlife, cultural, historic, and natural resources.
•FWP will provide family-oriented educational opportunities to help all ages learn to participate in and enjoy Montana's many and varied outdoor recreation opportunities.
•FWP will encourage high standards of outdoor behavior by recreationists who participate in FWP regulated activities.
Now, here is WDFW's mission, vision, and goals:
Mission and Goals
Our Mission
To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities.
Vision
Conservation of Washington’s fish and wildlife resources and ecosystems.
WDFW defines “Conservation” as:
Protection, preservation, management, or restoration of natural environments and the ecological communities that inhabit them; including management of human use for public benefit and sustainable social and economic needs.
(Adapted from The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005)
Department Goals
To achieve its mission, WDFW will continue to focus its activities on the following four goals:
I.Conserve and protect native fish and wildlife
II.Provide sustainable fishing, hunting and other wildlife-related recreational experiences.
III.Use sound business practices, deliver high-quality customer service.
IV.Maintain a highly skilled and motivated workforce.
Quite the difference in scope and audience. WDFW is extremely minimal in what they tell us they are all about, and they leave a lot of room for interpretation as to what they are really trying to accomplish. Their Mission Statement alone says it all: "To preserve, protect and perpetuate fish, wildlife and ecosystems while providing sustainable fish and wildlife recreational and commercial opportunities". Well, what is a sustainable recreational opportunity? To me, they have shown that as long as they can provide SOME hunting here and there, they get to say they are sustaining recreational opportunities. Their mission, vision, and goals have absolutely nothing to do with our heritage and nothing at all to do with keeping us informed and involved.
So i guess to answer your question Miles, I would take my awesomeness as a new WDFW employee and I would create a mandate that we get back to our roots and immediately implement a mission, vision, and set of goals similar to those in Montana.
Post by: wraithen on December 05, 2011, 08:43:21 AM
They may also want to realize that they are a part of the government. Not a business. Sounds more like the garbage a corporation puts out when it wants to seem like they are saying something without saying something.
Post by: high country on December 05, 2011, 09:18:39 AM
Post by: CedarPants on December 05, 2011, 09:22:44 AM
A few highlights from the current Performance Agreement that I personally feel are not being upheld by Anderson:
- Credible and objective research is needed to support reasoned and defensible decision-making. It is not acceptable to base priority management decisions on outdated, unverifiable information or personal opinion (was this mandate even remotely considered by Anderson when it came to the wolf plan?)
- Enhancement of recreational opportunities is among the highest priorities for the agency. A dedicated effort should be made to explore options for enhancing recreational opportunities. (Has Anderson made ANY effort to enhance ANYTHING for sportsmen/women?)
- Hunting and fishing are traditional activities that through license and permit sales sustain the agency and its programs. Services should be provided to hunters and fishers commensurate with the revenues received from these constituents. (Really, you mean Anderson is supposed to be seeing to it that the money we spend on licenses goes to providing us with services and opportunity? Don't see that currently happening)
- The Director must lay the foundation for a stronger and more effective and respected agency. (Failure here is rather obvious)
- The Director must demonstrate expertise in management techniques that effectively hold employees accountable (Failure here is rather obvious)
- The Director is expected to have a personal manner that works well with constituents from all backgrounds. He must approach his authorities and responsibilities with humility and open-mindedness. He is expected to display an attitude that inspires others to join in collaborative processes, because they are confident of being treated fairly. (Complete and utter failure here is rather obvious).
- The Director is expected to have a working understanding of scientific basis for resource management. He is expected to have a working understanding of scientific analyses and quantitative methods used (Anderson's go to theory with wolves has been 'we simply don't have the data to report on that and can't address it at this time).
- The Director is expected to provide sufficient support to the Commission so the Commission can successfully fulfill its role in providing policy leadership for the department
In my opinion, Anderson long ago didn't care to remember what he was put in charge of. Either that or he knew the direction he wanted to go and that nobody would stand in his way
Post by: bearmanric on December 05, 2011, 09:52:17 AM
Lobo Watch
http://www.facebook.com/aol#!/pages/Lobo-Watch/213339158676640 (http://www.facebook.com/aol#!/pages/Lobo-Watch/213339158676640)
Post by: Helix on December 05, 2011, 09:54:12 AM
Right now the media portrays any negative wolf encounter as the fault of the human that was confronted by the wolf. Usually that they "invaded the wolf's natural habitat..." the Media would have to be turned to our side before the tide could hope to be turned. I just don't see that happening since the media is completley sold out to the progressive liberal agenda of ending hunting and gun rights.
It would be nice if the people pushing the harm on us had to take an equal share of it. So then it only seems fair: introduce wolves to Downtown Seattle and Everett. See how fast they get "managed."
Post by: FC on December 05, 2011, 10:11:55 AM
Post by: wraithen on December 05, 2011, 10:18:29 AM
Post by: huntrights on December 05, 2011, 10:28:11 AM
"Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan Accepted by Commissioners with Amendments
The WDFW Commissioners voted to accept the Washington Wolf Conservation and Management Plan with amendments that were proposed at the meeting. I will not try to paraphrase the amendments; it would be best for those interested to read the actual amendments when they are available to view. Multiple Commissioners indicated that the plan, with the amendments, will give the WDFW flexibility to respond to issues such as threats to ungulate populations and livestock. They also indicated that the plan will be a ”Living” document that should support adaptive management of the wolf population; that is, the plan can be changed as the situation changes in reality. The Commissioners appeared very cognizant of the issues experienced in other states as wolf populations were allowed to grow beyond target levels.
Much of the controversy seems to center around a sustainable wolf population being in place in the State of Washington. That said; the sooner target wolf levels are achieved, the sooner the process can be started to downgrade the threatened or endangered status (delist); this will allow the WDFW more flexibility in appropriate management of the species. As was mentioned at the meeting, financial and human resources are an issue when allocating these resources to actually obtain accurate wolf counts and numbers of breeding pairs in the various zones. My personal opinion is that the WDFW resource issue will not be resolved anytime soon; there does not appear to be enough money or qualified people on staff to adequately monitor the wolves.
There is a wolf sightings post in this forum. I do not know how much of an official link there is to the WDFW, but I would propose that some official link or agreement be made with WDFW; I believe they could use the help. If hunters, ranchers, and others in areas where the wolves are expanding can photograph the wolves, and/or identify where their dens are, then the WDFW wolf specialist(s) can be taken to the exact locations where there is undisputable evidence of the wolves and/or breeding pairs. I am concerned that if the WDFW monitors the wolf population and breeding pair status alone, using their limited resources, their assessment may be a significant underestimate of how many wolves and breeding pairs there actually are. My point is: I believe we should find some way to work with the WDFW to ensure the state wolf population and number of breeding pairs is assessed as accurately as possible.
As always, efforts should be unified. I believe there are many national and state organizations that might be able to help coordinate such an effort to help the WDFW. I don’t believe it would be in the best interest of our ungulate populations, livestock ranches, or rural communities to have official wolf counts show numbers that might tend to be less than the actual number of wolves. Those of you that have connections with organizations such as the RMEF, Hunter’s Heritage Council, Washingtonians for Wildlife Conservation, Safari Club International, Washington for Wildlife, and Big Game Forever, to name a few, might consider proposing such partnerships with state game management departments. I believe if we work together, positive results are more likely.
Here's the link to the WDFW news release:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=dec0311a "
Post by: Kain on December 05, 2011, 10:30:53 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150423160876761&set=a.390652606760.166104.385127436760&type=1&theater
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on December 05, 2011, 10:58:37 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 05, 2011, 11:03:20 AM
Post by: Kain on December 05, 2011, 11:08:00 AM
Post by: wraithen on December 05, 2011, 11:32:36 AM
Post by: akirkland on December 05, 2011, 12:29:22 PM
Boycott buying any type of Washington hunting/fishing licenses, tags etc. Don't buy a Discover Pass or support the state parks, nothing. Save your money and go out of state. Show those people in Olympia that we mean business and are sick and tired of being screwed all the time. They raise our fees and shorten our seasons and change the dates. Would the last sportsman/women leaving Washington turn off the lights please !:yeah:
Post by: Kain on December 05, 2011, 12:40:48 PM
Post by: Kain on December 05, 2011, 12:43:32 PM
Post by: bearpaw on December 05, 2011, 01:12:13 PM
Without the amendments we were screwed and with them we are screwed, no matter what, the wolf lovers will sue. I commend the commission for at least adding the amendments. Too bad they didn't reduce the bp's down to 6 or 8 statewide because it will go to court anyway, at least that way it would go to court at 6 or 8 bp's instead of at 15 bp's. :twocents:
REMEMBER WYOMING: They stuck with 10 bp's and they are going to end up in better position than ID, MT, or WA.
Post by: leed on December 05, 2011, 03:15:58 PM
Post by: huntrights on December 05, 2011, 09:16:41 PM