Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 10:12:37 AM
A press release from the Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife announcing the Jan. 6-7 meeting of the Fish & Wildlife Commission may have inadvertently vindicated long-time critics of this state’s Resource Allocation-based hunting regulations.
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/does-wdfw-press-release-reveal-serious-fault-with-wa-wildlife-management
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 10:21:51 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 10:25:16 AM
Good read Dave, thank you for posting
Spread that link around. ;)
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 10:33:07 AM
Is there any data available for the number of deer and elk hunters over the years? The number of licensed hunters doesn't really tell us a lot. Back in the 70's we had really good hunting for wild pheasant, and decent hunting through the 80's. The duck hunting was better too, and there were far more places to hunt ducks and pheasants back then.
My guess is that a large part of the decrease in hunters has to do with the decrease in opportunity to hunt and kill birds, and not so much to do with the decrease in opportunity for big game.
Of course it also has something to do with people in general becoming more "cityfied". The kids today don't spend time outside like we used to, they would rather stay indoors and play video games.
I just really think you're off base in trying to blame the WDFW for the reduction in the number of hunters. There are many things we can blame on the WDFW, but that is not one of them, in my opinion.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 29, 2011, 11:18:25 AM
30 years of allowing non and anti hunters to help make the mess we have now is not the fault of WDFW? the harder and more expensive it gets...the more hunters you loose. Do anti hunters want hunters to give up....Ya think?
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:24:58 AM
Dave,
Is there any data available for the number of deer and elk hunters over the years? The number of licensed hunters doesn't really tell us a lot. Back in the 70's we had really good hunting for wild pheasant, and decent hunting through the 80's. The duck hunting was better too, and there were far more places to hunt ducks and pheasants back then.
My guess is that a large part of the decrease in hunters has to do with the decrease in opportunity to hunt and kill birds, and not so much to do with the decrease in opportunity for big game.
Of course it also has something to do with people in general becoming more "cityfied". The kids today don't spend time outside like we used to, they would rather stay indoors and play video games.
I just really think you're off base in trying to blame the WDFW for the reduction in the number of hunters. There are many things we can blame on the WDFW, but that is not one of them, in my opinion.
First things first, Kids spend there time indoors because their parents let them!! Also, they don't have the hunting opportunities that kids had in the 60's and 70's. Kids used to ride their bikes to a close by pond or lake to fish, or to a close by field or patch of woods to hunt. Those places, for the most part, are just not there. Plus, could you imagine what would happen if someone saw a kid riding his 12 speed down meridian or 410 with a 12 guage on the front :yike: Chances are he wouldn't make it very far.
In my opinion the other reason for less people buying licenses, is the overall success rates of deer, elk and bird hunters. Our state only wants us to be so successfull, and compared to neighboring states, our rates are piss poor. When success rates are around 8% for elk, I don't blame people for not buying a license.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 29, 2011, 11:34:48 AM
Just made me think about the programs for under privilaged kids to become tree huggers, do we as hunters fund programs like this?
http://www.ncascades.org/get_involved/contribute/index.html
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 11:39:22 AM
First things first, Kids spend there time indoors because their parents let them!! Also, they don't have the hunting opportunities that kids had in the 60's and 70's. Kids used to ride their bikes to a close by pond or lake to fish, or to a close by field or patch of woods to hunt. Those places, for the most part, are just not there. Plus, could you imagine what would happen if someone saw a kid riding his 12 speed down meridian or 410 with a 12 guage on the front :yike: Chances are he wouldn't make it very far.
In my opinion the other reason for less people buying licenses, is the overall success rates of deer, elk and bird hunters. Our state only wants us to be so successfull, and compared to neighboring states, our rates are piss poor. When success rates are around 8% for elk, I don't blame people for not buying a license.
I agree with all that you have said. What I don't agree with is Dave's opinion that "Resource Allocation - based hunting regulations" is the cause for the reduction in the number of hunters in this state. I believe it is a lot more complicated than that.
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 11:47:10 AM
I agree with all that you have said. What I don't agree with is Dave's opinion that "Resource Allocation - based hunting regulations" is the cause for the reduction in the number of hunters in this state. I believe it is a lot more complicated than that.
Bobcat, I'm calling B.S. on you.
That's not what I said and you know it.
THIS is what I said (which you evidently agree with):
Quote
While it would be foolish to blame the decline entirely on Resource Allocation, the numbers suggest Washington State has a serious problem, probably several problems. Shorter seasons across the board for all user groups, adjusted season dates that virtually guarantee a lower harvest, especially for Eastern Washington elk, antler point restrictions on elk and mule deer, and this year for whitetail bucks in two popular northeast units; all are likely contributing factors.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 11:50:59 AM
I agree with all that you have said. What I don't agree with is Dave's opinion that "Resource Allocation - based hunting regulations" is the cause for the reduction in the number of hunters in this state. I believe it is a lot more complicated than that.
Bobcat, I'm calling B.S. on you.
That's not what I said and you know it.
THIS is what I said (which you evidently agree with):QuoteWhile it would be foolish to blame the decline entirely on Resource Allocation, the numbers suggest Washington State has a serious problem, probably several problems. Shorter seasons across the board for all user groups, adjusted season dates that virtually guarantee a lower harvest, especially for Eastern Washington elk, antler point restrictions on elk and mule deer, and this year for whitetail bucks in two popular northeast units; all are likely contributing factors.
You didn't say that it is enirely to blame, but, in my opinion, you definitely insinuated Resource Allocation is the main problem.
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 11:54:07 AM
Dave,
Is there any data available for the number of deer and elk hunters over the years? The number of licensed hunters doesn't really tell us a lot. Back in the 70's we had really good hunting for wild pheasant, and decent hunting through the 80's. The duck hunting was better too, and there were far more places to hunt ducks and pheasants back then.
My guess is that a large part of the decrease in hunters has to do with the decrease in opportunity to hunt and kill birds, and not so much to do with the decrease in opportunity for big game.
Of course it also has something to do with people in general becoming more "cityfied". The kids today don't spend time outside like we used to, they would rather stay indoors and play video games.
I just really think you're off base in trying to blame the WDFW for the reduction in the number of hunters. There are many things we can blame on the WDFW, but that is not one of them, in my opinion.
The USFWS data isn't broken down that way, to divide between big game and bird hunters.
But for you to suggest that the decreased opportunity to hunt big game doesn't have a lot to do with this is puzzling.
You can think whatever you want about holding WDFW responsible, but they are the agency in charge of hunting and providing opportunities. You're suggesting that they should not be held accountable for what has become of management and opportunity in this state.
That's like saying Eric Holder should not be held accountable for Fast & Furious.
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 11:54:51 AM
I agree with all that you have said. What I don't agree with is Dave's opinion that "Resource Allocation - based hunting regulations" is the cause for the reduction in the number of hunters in this state. I believe it is a lot more complicated than that.
Bobcat, I'm calling B.S. on you.
That's not what I said and you know it.
THIS is what I said (which you evidently agree with):QuoteWhile it would be foolish to blame the decline entirely on Resource Allocation, the numbers suggest Washington State has a serious problem, probably several problems. Shorter seasons across the board for all user groups, adjusted season dates that virtually guarantee a lower harvest, especially for Eastern Washington elk, antler point restrictions on elk and mule deer, and this year for whitetail bucks in two popular northeast units; all are likely contributing factors.
OK, I missed that, but I don't agree that it's resource allocation OR any of the other factors you mention in the above paragraph. I agree low success rates could be a big part of lower hunter numbers, but we have low success rates because we have relatively low numbers of animals. Make the seasons longer and at times when big game animals are more vulnerable like you want, and we will have even less animals to hunt, and even LOWER success rates.
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 12:05:01 PM
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 12:07:58 PM
You didn't say that it is enirely to blame, but, in my opinion, you definitely insinuated Resource Allocation is the main problem.
I didn't "insinuate" anything. The WDFW press release did that for me by acknowledging that hunters are after more opportunity, therefore, the agency wants to up the number of these special permits for multi-season hunting, which is, as was quickly pointed out, all about MONEY.
The agency strategy is to give this some kind of exclusivity, and I think we ought to throw it open to everyone who wants to go buy an extra tag, the way it was way back when.
They think they'll make more money through permit application fees. I think they'll make a lot more money with OTC sales, and give a lot more people the opportunity to hunt multiple seasons.
I want hunters united. They seem to want to keep hunting user groups split.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on December 29, 2011, 12:16:55 PM
Post by: TopOfTheFoodChain on December 29, 2011, 12:17:06 PM
Thank you for posting. That's a great article. I do not come from a hunting family and had no knowledge of how "it used to be". I won't regurgitate the article but simply say they make a lot of good points I agree with. I have personally stopped elk hunting in this state- due directly to my views of WDFW's crappy management practices.
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 12:18:42 PM
Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
You are getting warm!
As I remarked in the column, the WDFW needs to be accountable for providing bigger and healthier herds. For way too many years, we've all heard the Olympia mantra of "these are the good old days" and "we need to settle for less"
It has been said here by one of our comrades that "Less is the New More" and while some people here seem to accept that, it's nonsense.
If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.
Instead, we seem to be managing for "Less is the new More." And we're placing far too much emphasis on getting wolf populations up and not enough emphasis on making those elk and deer herds a lot healthier than they are.
The "we shouldn't blame the WDFW" argument doesn't pass the smell test.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 29, 2011, 12:31:33 PM
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 12:54:01 PM
You didn't say that it is enirely to blame, but, in my opinion, you definitely insinuated Resource Allocation is the main problem.
I didn't "insinuate" anything. The WDFW press release did that for me by acknowledging that hunters are after more opportunity, therefore, the agency wants to up the number of these special permits for multi-season hunting, which is, as was quickly pointed out, all about MONEY.
The agency strategy is to give this some kind of exclusivity, and I think we ought to throw it open to everyone who wants to go buy an extra tag, the way it was way back when.
They think they'll make more money through permit application fees. I think they'll make a lot more money with OTC sales, and give a lot more people the opportunity to hunt multiple seasons.
I want hunters united. They seem to want to keep hunting user groups split.
That's why i stated that it was my opinion. I guess i interprete your article differently than you had inteded it to be. I do agree with you in the idea that the state would make more money with otc sales.
Post by: Bob33 on December 29, 2011, 01:15:16 PM
If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.Please explain how WDFW has the authority and resources to: (1) take all the national forest lands and improve them, (2) repeal policies that hinder clearcutting, (3) get serious about predator control.
I'm all for it.
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 01:45:53 PM
Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
Who is to blame? Well, nobody really. Blame the weather, blame the predators, blame people for building and paving over prime wildlife habitat, blame the internet, blame illegal immigrants, blame too many roads and not enough gates, blame the indians, blame ATV's, blame GPS, blame the forest service for not logging enough and/or not letting enough fires burn.
Is that enough? I only blame the WDFW for providing too much opportunity in many cases, while Dave thinks they don't provide enough.
I just don't think the WDFW has that much control over all the factors that affect the populations of deer and elk in this state. If they owned all the land and made all the laws, then yes, they could make a lot more difference. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 01:57:09 PM
My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW? If they as an agency have absolutely no control over these factors that have a profound impact on our wildlife, what is it exactly that they do? If we as sportsmen cannot go to them with our concerns, since these things are beyond their control .... what, if any, accountability do they have to us as a group? What accountability do they have to any group for that matter if everything is beyond their control? What is the end-result they are aiming to achieve where they can say "our agency is a success, we have reached our goals"?
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2011, 01:59:52 PM
Make the seasons longer and at times when big game animals are more vulnerable like you want, and we will have even less animals to hunt, and even LOWER success rates.
Not true Bob, the success rate, as far back as they started keeping track, have always been in the 22-25% range, even when the seasons were longer and running later.
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 02:01:53 PM
If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.Please explain how WDFW has the authority and resources to: (1) take all the national forest lands and improve them, (2) repeal policies that hinder clearcutting, (3) get serious about predator control.
I'm all for it.
Re-read that. If "we" took all of the land..... What I'm suggesting is that the WDFW could easily partner with the USFS and the DNR to improve public lands. This would be a perfect expenditure of Pittman-Robertson funds, and think of the matching grant money that could come from RMEF, the Mule Deer Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, NWTF...and whatever else they could get... now THERE would be a genuine success story.
But it takes some doing, and so far, I haven't seen this kind of outside-the-box thinking since one of our own here, Wacenturion, spearheaded the wild turkey enhancement program. That was a stroke of sheer genius, accomplished on a virtual shoestring budget (compared to what we're :pee: away on wolves).
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2011, 02:14:13 PM
Wacenturion, spearheaded the wild turkey enhancement program. That was a stroke of sheer genius, accomplished on a virtual shoestring budget (compared to what we're :pee: away on wolves).
And what a wonderful job he did on it too. :tup:
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 02:20:15 PM
Make the seasons longer and at times when big game animals are more vulnerable like you want, and we will have even less animals to hunt, and even LOWER success rates.
Not true Bob, the success rate, as far back as they started keeping track, have always been in the 22-25% range, even when the seasons were longer and running later.
2010 Success Rate: Entiat 13% Swakane 14% Teanaway 11%
Just a few examples of some of the best and most popular mule deer units. From the sounds of it, the success rate was much lower this year.
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 02:22:55 PM
My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW?
People management.
Post by: Dhoey07 on December 29, 2011, 02:27:44 PM
My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW?
People management.
Amen to that
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2011, 02:34:17 PM
Quote
2010 Success Rate: Entiat 13% Swakane 14% Teanaway 11%
Just a few examples of some of the best and most popular mule deer units. From the sounds of it, the success rate was much lower this year
Just like a typical liberal, choosing only the pieces that argue your point. We are talking overall statistics Bob, I'm quite sure we could find a hunt or two that were near 100% too, Swakane sheep, 49DN moose etc.
There were a couple threads on here during the general hunt where guys were complaining over and over that there were no deer left. I told you and them that the season has been backed up so far that you are only going to see "local" deer during the general season and that the numbers would be there a couple weeks later, after the general closed. Well guess what, I was on a couple late hunts with friends and family members and saw loads of deer, there didn't appear to be a shortage at all.
The numbers are not what they were in the 80's but they sure as hell have improved greatly over the early 90's harsh winter seasons when we lost our seasons.
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 02:46:06 PM
(2010 modern firearm deer)
Naneum 7%
Taneum 5%
Manastash 7%
Umtanum 8%
Little Naches 4%
Nile 4%
Bethel 3%
Rimrock 2%
Cowiche 6%
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2011, 03:27:01 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 29, 2011, 03:34:23 PM
Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?
Sorry (not really) to pick and choose.....But what was WDFW's official position on those ballot issues?
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 03:39:55 PM
Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?
Sorry (not really) to pick and choose.....But what was WDFW's official position on those ballot issues?
I would think if a ballot issue arises (let's say environmentalists gather enough signatures to get an initiative on the ballot banning ALL bear and cougar hunting) that the WDFW views as detrimental to their "goals" of successful wildlife management, they could step in and squash it. I could be wrong, but it seems realistic that as the agency in charge of our wildlife they could disallow such an initiative to even make it to the ballot if it was deemed to contradict their management objectives.
And if that is the case, dang good question Elkaholic.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 29, 2011, 03:45:09 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 03:53:06 PM
If I remember right..It was neutral at BEST
You remember correctly. Possibly the best source on this would be Bearpaw.
But I recall this fiasco and at the time I talked to a guy in WDFW who I knew, and he simply said the agency "had to keep quiet" because it was a political issue. Which is bushwa. Idaho and Oregon and Michigan agencies weighed in when the same horse dung kind of initiatives were tried in those states.
The WDFW "greened" out because of political correctness. It was at that juncture I lost any respect for them as a management agency, not that I had much before that, since the Gardner days and "secret agreements."
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 29, 2011, 03:58:03 PM
As they were programming hunters to be good cash cows and accept"less is more"
Post by: Glockster on December 29, 2011, 05:01:35 PM
1) Methow & Chelan muledeer herds: seem pretty healthy to me....tons of beautiful 4pt/5pt bucks on winter range pics posted all over the photog page of this site. I don't see very many late season permit holders posting "unhealthy" spindly 3pt pics.
2) SE Muledeer: I counted 50-75 deer /day on my two weekends of Almota unit hunting.
3) Yakima elk: Not many shot this year but i consider that the byproduct of shortened crappy season timing. Not many shot last year either and then near record #'s showed up at the feed stations. Oak Creek will look like a mini version of Jackson Hole elk refuge most years. Seems like a pretty healthy herd to me.
Unhealthy:
Yakima deer herd....down at least 70%.....yet Berni and company claim to not have the $'s or mandate to do an accurate survey to find the extent of the problem. (Kind of like the near extinction of Puget Sound true cod and pollack in the early 80's...the Dept kind of just walked away from this disaster). Only those of us who were fortunate to hunt these units back in the 60's-80's know what a true disaster this is.
Cascade foothill blacktail deer...(with exceptions of private timber lands where cutting still occurs)....certainly unhealthy in terms of raw #'s of deer available to hunters. No food , no deer.
Like everything, the truth lies between the extremes.
Post by: Rainstorm Hunter on December 29, 2011, 05:59:19 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on December 29, 2011, 06:00:17 PM
If we want to get back to the good ole days of hunting in western washington we need to increase logging (with environmental laws never gonna happen) We need to start trapping and hunting predators with hounds again. And we need to get timber companies to stop spraying herbicides and let some more forage grow. That is what needs to happen to spike the blacktail and roosevelt populations. I cant really speak for the eastern half of the state since I have never hunted over there and dont really know the cicumstances of the game there.:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 06:37:07 PM
If we want to get back to the good ole days of hunting in western washington we need to increase logging (with environmental laws never gonna happen) We need to start trapping and hunting predators with hounds again. And we need to get timber companies to stop spraying herbicides and let some more forage grow. That is what needs to happen to spike the blacktail and roosevelt populations. I cant really speak for the eastern half of the state since I have never hunted over there and dont really know the cicumstances of the game there.
I agree with all of that, and the WDFW has absolutely no influence on any of those things.
Post by: sebek556 on December 29, 2011, 06:55:07 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 06:57:08 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 29, 2011, 07:11:21 PM
Post by: CedarPants on December 29, 2011, 07:11:47 PM
Post by: sebek556 on December 29, 2011, 07:13:37 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on December 29, 2011, 07:56:00 PM
Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. :tup:
Post by: Humptulips on December 29, 2011, 08:56:01 PM
Don't you know there are now laws that ban trapping and hound hunting? The WDFW can't change that. I wish they could but they can't.
Not quite right. Yea there are restrictions on trapping but not banned. I think you know this.
Here's an idea that I know will never fly but makes pretty good sense to me. Make trapping a legal method of take for cougar. They're in my traps all the time but of course the traps are not big enoughto fit a cougar in. Be easy to build a little bigger trap.
And I might add Maine is the only lower 48 state that has a trapping season for bear and it gets a lot of non-residents that come up for a chance to trap a bear.
They have a number of guide services that specialize in trapping bear.
So they could bring in some out of state money and get rid of a few cougars and they could possibly do the same with bear. What's the downside to that?
Post by: huntnphool on December 29, 2011, 09:30:54 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 29, 2011, 09:37:22 PM
Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?
Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?
. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?
Sorry (not really) to pick and choose.....But what was WDFW's official position on those ballot issues?
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Post by: Humptulips on December 29, 2011, 09:50:27 PM
The anti's throw fits about baiting bears for hunting, what do you think they would do if they saw someone walk up to a trapped bear and shoot it when it couldn't go anywhere? :chuckle:
If they don't like it the fault is theirs. It is a management option the WDFW has and their options have been reduced to it by those same antis.
I'm not really advocating bear trapping though. I don't think it would work well with the current trapping laws. It could work well with cougar though. They could give out permits much as they would have in the failed bill to expand the cougar hound hunting pilot project.
I know it will never happen but it's about the only option WDFW has increase the cougar take. Question is do they really want to do that?
Post by: Dave Workman on December 30, 2011, 04:06:13 AM
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Item #1: Yes, You don't know. Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.
Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position. Ask Bearpaw. Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.
Now, the question> If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?
Post by: Bigshooter on December 30, 2011, 06:00:09 AM
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Item #1: Yes, You don't know. Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.
Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position. Ask Bearpaw. Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.
Now, the question> If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?
So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then? This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.
Post by: CedarPants on December 30, 2011, 06:42:32 AM
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Item #1: Yes, You don't know. Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.
Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position. Ask Bearpaw. Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.
Now, the question> If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?
So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then? This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.
You are talking about 2 separate issues here. 1 - the lack of action by our WDFW on these issues, 2 - the liberal voters in this state. The latter is something we have absolutely no control over, the former has the option of involving themselves or not.
To answer your question though - if the WDFW actually grew some and stated this ban needs to be repealed due to wildlife management objectives not being met, and it STILL fails - then clearly WDFW is not to blame. I don't see the WDFW doing that though, ever - so the better question would be who do we blame right now?
Post by: Dave Workman on December 30, 2011, 07:09:52 AM
So if WDFW takes a position saying we want it overturned and it fails who do you blame then? This is not Idaho, to think that liberal WA would do something that conservative Idaho did is wishful thinking.
THEN you blame the Legislature, because they had/have the power to repeal this statute two years after it was passed.
But the onus is STILL on the WDFW, which would have to actively lobby the Legislature and tell them why this statute is a cluster-flop...
But I'm with Cedar on this. I'm not certain they would do it.
Post by: Machias on December 30, 2011, 09:00:40 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 30, 2011, 09:22:08 AM
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Item #1: Yes, You don't know. Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.
Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position. Ask Bearpaw. Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.
Now, the question> If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?
Stop drinking their kool aid and telling us how good it tastes.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 09:48:05 AM
If I remember right..It was neutral at BEST
You remember correctly. Possibly the best source on this would be Bearpaw.
But I recall this fiasco and at the time I talked to a guy in WDFW who I knew, and he simply said the agency "had to keep quiet" because it was a political issue. Which is bushwa. Idaho and Oregon and Michigan agencies weighed in when the same horse dung kind of initiatives were tried in those states.
The WDFW "greened" out because of political correctness. It was at that juncture I lost any respect for them as a management agency, not that I had much before that, since the Gardner days and "secret agreements."
Dave is right, the WDFW basically did nothing to stop the ban on hound hunting. It seemed to me that the WDFW managers at that time actually wanted hound hunting eliminated.
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2011, 09:58:49 AM
Not meaning to ignore your question, but the answer is- I don't know.
I think, but don't know for a fact, that their position is that they can't have an official postion.
Item #1: Yes, You don't know. Your posts in defense of, or as an apologist for, the WDFW clearly demonstrate that.
Item #2: They can have an official position as the state agency that manages wildlife. They just took the C.S. approach (politically correct, politically expedient) and didn't take a position. Ask Bearpaw. Had the department taken a position (Idaho Fish & Game was aggressive in its opposition to a similar measure) the ban would never have passed. It is now several years down the road. By law, and I believe by constitution, the Legislature can now repeal that ban, and it should. It is long overdue.
Now, the question> If a bill comes up before the Legislature to repeal the ban, and the WDFW "takes no position," will you cover their butts and make excuses, or will you actively lobby your state lawmaker to vote for repeal?
No need to get your panties in a wad Dave. What I state on here are my opinions. Not necessarily facts. Same as you. Just because you write something in an article doesn't mean it's true. I'm not defending or apologizing for the DFW. It's just that as far as I know, state agencies are not allowed to lobby for or against initiatives. If you have information that says they can, please post it here.
I'm not sure why you seem to be so sensitive to things I post on here. It's simply my opinion and you don't need to take it so personal. Do you really think everyone is going to agree 100% with everything you write?
Post by: Curly on December 30, 2011, 10:02:24 AM
Dave,
Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. :tup:
:yeah:
Post by: Dave Workman on December 30, 2011, 10:07:56 AM
Dave,
Your articles are always written to stir debate and get people to think. You do a good job in your journalism and it is appriciated. :tup:
Very kind of you. One of my New Year's resolutions is to continue annoying people. :chuckle:
Post by: Gringo31 on December 30, 2011, 10:13:30 AM
I want people to think about this statement....
Quote
Multiply, say, 500 wolves (from which there would be 15 identifiable breeding pairs, as required under the recently-adopted wolf management plan) by 44. That's 22,000 deer, more than the number of mule deer or whitetails annually taken by licensed hunters during a season. That number doesn't include elk, moose, caribou known to be in far Northeast Washington, or livestock. That is over and above the number of game animals already being killed by cougars, coyotes and bears.
Post by: Kain on December 30, 2011, 10:18:09 AM
If I remember right..It was neutral at BEST
You remember correctly. Possibly the best source on this would be Bearpaw.
But I recall this fiasco and at the time I talked to a guy in WDFW who I knew, and he simply said the agency "had to keep quiet" because it was a political issue. Which is bushwa. Idaho and Oregon and Michigan agencies weighed in when the same horse dung kind of initiatives were tried in those states.
The WDFW "greened" out because of political correctness. It was at that juncture I lost any respect for them as a management agency, not that I had much before that, since the Gardner days and "secret agreements."
They "greened" out because of more money to the agency.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/07/bear-baiting-ban-to-cost-1-million-agency-says/
Quote
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife has already put a price tag on the effect of the voter-approved Initiative 655 that restricts certain controversial hunting methods - $1 million a year.
That’s how much the agency plans to ask the Legislature for in January so it can hire additional wildlife agents and equipment to handle the increase in nuisance calls regarding bears and big cats that’s expected as a result of the new law.
“Even before the initiative came along, we submitted a request for 31 more enforcement officers to handle increasing complaints we’re getting statewide about cougars and black bears. Essentially, the passage of 655 may give our request more of an urgent twist to it,” Fish and Wildlife Department spokesman Tim Waters said Wednesday.
They were never neutral on baiting.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june2004/bear.htm
Quote
"It's a fair hunt principle; baiting isn't fair play," said Craig Bartlett, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife public information officer.
They do surveys to see how the public "feels" about lethal control methods of predators and then craft the seasons around that. That is not science based management and goes completely against their legislative mandate.
I cant believe the guys that dont blame the WDFW for this.
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 30, 2011, 10:26:39 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 10:32:27 AM
There's no doubt in my mind that the majority of past upper management (not all) in the WDFW have been a significant negative factor for Washington's hunters. If we could get rid of certain upper managers and promote some pro-hunting personnel from within the WDFW, or bring in some managers with proven pro-hunting backgrounds, hunting might have a chance in this state. :twocents:
This problem with upper management is not significant to Washington, many states are having the same type of problems with F&G management. The problem is that these guys are being educated by liberal anti-hunting professors in our universities.
My daughter is attending WSU and she was just telling me how it's obvious which professors are anti hunting/guns and which are not.
Post by: Kain on December 30, 2011, 10:37:26 AM
They can state what's needed for management if they choose.
There's no doubt in my mind that the majority of past upper management (not all) in the WDFW have been a significant negative factor for Washington's hunters. If we could get rid of certain upper managers and promote some pro-hunting personnel from within the WDFW, or bring in some managers with proven pro-hunting backgrounds, hunting might have a chance in this state. :twocents:
This problem with upper management is not significant to Washington, many states are having the same type of problems with F&G management. The problem is that these guys are being educated by liberal anti-hunting professors in our universities.
My daughter is attending WSU and she was just telling me how it's obvious which professors are anti hunting/guns and which are not.
Exactly and guess where the WDFW gets most of its scientific studies to base their management plans off. Yep WSU biology department. The head of that department is not hunter friendly. The same department that tells us that older cougar teach the younger ones to stay out of trouble. :bash: :bash:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 30, 2011, 10:51:10 AM
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 30, 2011, 10:55:35 AM
Balance in WDFW?
Post by: Dave Workman on December 30, 2011, 10:56:53 AM
No need to get your panties in a wad Dave. What I state on here are my opinions. Not necessarily facts. Same as you. Just because you write something in an article doesn't mean it's true.
No, not "same as me." I am not in the habit of printing lies. I leave that to the New York Times.
What I wrote in the column under discussion was loaded with facts. There was the USFWS data. I've had years of experience interviewing people in the field, listening to complaints at boat landings, on the telephone, in the field...When I write about that stuff, it's because I've been covering this issue for more years than I care to admit. It's my beat.
We know that opportunities have declined for all user groups from what they were back in 1984 when RA was adopted and there were more than 110,000 more hunters than there are now. Let's say for the sake of argument that only half of those were big game hunters...that's still more than 50,000 FEWER hunters today, yet their across the board opportunities have been incrementally shrinking while the WDFW has added a lot of permit hunts, for the purpose of collecting additional fees, while the average guys are stuck with the "Less is More" management scheme.
Do you think losing more than 110,000 hunters over the past 25 years is a good thing? It translates to lost revenue for the agency, lost resources for the wildlife, and lost political power for hunters.
We keep hearing the game herds are not healthy. Well, who's in charge of managing the herds? Whose responsibility is it to keep those herds viable, and to step in when they see the resource being abused or misused? The department is responsible, and when the department takes credit for something good they damn well need to take the rap for something that isn't so good.
Of course the agency can't prevent hairslip disease or other diseases like CWD that have plagued deer populations in recent years in parts of the country, but the agency CAN take a far more aggressive position on predators and on tribal regs that allow hunters to kill multiple elk and deer, and they can tell the public about that. The public has a right to know that stuff, and to be outraged, but do you hear so much as a peep from Olympia? You know who publicized the tribal regs back in the 1980s after it was revealed there had been some "secret agreements" negotiated with the tribes? Me. You know who fired sportsmen up about those agreements? Me.
There are people in the department and on the WDFW and even a few on this forum who look at the growing population of wolves and cougars and bears as a success, but anyone who isn't still wet behind the ears realizes that 5-10 years down the road, it's going to be looked at as a disaster, and you only need to look at elk herds in Idaho and Montana, and the Yellowstone elk population as proof.
If you don't believe that, there's a problem, but it is YOUR problem. A lot of the old-timers on this forum seem to concur with what I've written. It is quite possible they remember I was there in this fight 30 years ago, warning that this crap was going to happen. I was there on the Capitol Steps with 2,000 angry hunters and anglers (Tom Nelson and I put most of them there) demanding better management in the early 1980s.
When the agency has done a good thing, I've said so. As Wacenturion can attest, back when he did the turkey program and it was a howling success, I said so in the old F&H News. Back when the commission adopted a 6-week, 7-weekend Northeast deer season (doing away with the split hunt) I said it was a good thing...but look at it now. Back when the agency announced plans to improve habitat for upland birds and game, and other critters in the Columbia Basin, I said it was a good thing.
When the greenies ran the mountain lion initiative, and the department did essentially nothing, I said it was a bad thing, and I can rest that case, can't I?
BTW. I don't wear panties. And I don't drink Kool aid.
And I've got nothing personal against you Bobcat. You are definitely entitled to your opinion.
Post by: Dave Workman on December 30, 2011, 10:58:11 AM
K. So how do we go about cleaning house? Other than changing the Governor? Let me rephrase that, how do we gain
Balance in WDFW?
You were right the first time. Change the governor. Change the PARTY of the governor. Change the majority party in the Legislature.
:tup:
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 30, 2011, 11:07:24 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 30, 2011, 11:10:59 AM
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:K. So how do we go about cleaning house? Other than changing the Governor? Let me rephrase that, how do we gain
Balance in WDFW?
You were right the first time. Change the governor. Change the PARTY of the governor. Change the majority party in the Legislature.
:tup:
Does the name Curt Smitch mean anything to anyone on here. Other than you Dave :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2011, 11:20:19 AM
BTW. I don't wear panties. And I don't drink Kool aid.
You go commando?! :yike: Too much information, Dave. I REALLY didn't need to know that.
Oh, and BTW, I don't drink kool aid either, I'm more of a diet coke kind of guy.
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 11:26:40 AM
Does the name Curt Smitch mean anything to anyone on here. Other than you Dave :chuckle: :chuckle:
:bash: :bash: :bash: He was a real piece of work!!!
Post by: Ridgeratt on December 30, 2011, 11:29:55 AM
Curt Smitch has served in a variety of roles with the state and federal government throughout his thirty year public service career. After leaving his position as an assistant professor at Michigan State University, Curt began his Washington State government career under Governor Dixie Lee Ray in 1979 as the Capital Budget Coordinator for the Office of Financial Management. Thereafter, Curt held management positions in the Washington State Department of Fisheries and later became Director of the Washington State Department of Wildlife under Governor Booth Gardner.
In 1994, Curt served in the Clinton Administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Program Supervisor for the Pacific Northwest Habitat Conservation Plan Program and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Assistant Regional Director in 1995. In 1997, he returned to Washington State government as a Special Assistant to Governor Locke for Natural Resources Policy and chaired the Governor's Natural Resource Cabinet.
Curt holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education from Michigan State University, a Masters in Environmental Sciences and a BS and BA in Biology from Western Washington University. He also successfully completed the Program for Senior Executives at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Curt Smitch has served with the following associations:
•Commissioner, Oregon and Washington, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 1997-2003
•Chair, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 2000
•Chair Elect, Policy Advisory Committee, Olympic Natural Resources Center, 1992-Present
•Chair Elect, Governor’s Council for Environmental Education, 1991-1994
•Chair, Water Resources Comm. of the International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 1991
•President, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1989
•Governor’s Appointee, to the State Forest Practices Board, 1984-1988
•Founding Member, Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement, 1986
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 30, 2011, 11:43:24 AM
Curt Smitch
Curt Smitch has served in a variety of roles with the state and federal government throughout his thirty year public service career. After leaving his position as an assistant professor at Michigan State University, Curt began his Washington State government career under Governor Dixie Lee Ray in 1979 as the Capital Budget Coordinator for the Office of Financial Management. Thereafter, Curt held management positions in the Washington State Department of Fisheries and later became Director of the Washington State Department of Wildlife under Governor Booth Gardner.
In 1994, Curt served in the Clinton Administration as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Program Supervisor for the Pacific Northwest Habitat Conservation Plan Program and became the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Assistant Regional Director in 1995. In 1997, he returned to Washington State government as a Special Assistant to Governor Locke for Natural Resources Policy and chaired the Governor's Natural Resource Cabinet.
Curt holds a Doctorate of Philosophy in Education from Michigan State University, a Masters in Environmental Sciences and a BS and BA in Biology from Western Washington University. He also successfully completed the Program for Senior Executives at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Curt Smitch has served with the following associations:
•Commissioner, Oregon and Washington, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 1997-2003
•Chair, US/Canada, Pacific Salmon Commission, 2000
•Chair Elect, Policy Advisory Committee, Olympic Natural Resources Center, 1992-Present
•Chair Elect, Governor’s Council for Environmental Education, 1991-1994
•Chair, Water Resources Comm. of the International Assoc. of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, 1991
•President, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 1989
•Governor’s Appointee, to the State Forest Practices Board, 1984-1988
•Founding Member, Timber Fish and Wildlife Agreement, 1986
Sure is a LOT of green in that resume which is usually not friendly with us
Post by: Curly on December 30, 2011, 11:45:29 AM
I don't think it shows that there is serious fault with resource allocation. I think it just shows that WDFW will "pimp-out" our wildlife if they feel the price is right. They are willing to allow x-amount of hunters to hunt with multiple weapons in order for the department to make more money. I think they are downplaying the affect on game populations with the increase of multi-permits in order to justify the increase in permit numbers so that they will get a revenue increase.
If they were to reduce the price of the multi-permit and allow unlimited amount of multi-permits, then they would be admitting that they were wrong with resource allocation. In this economy, not too many people can afford to pay the price of these permits.
I'd be interested to see if a WDFW biologist will admit that removing resource allocation would have no affect on season lengths or timing of seasons. Removing resource allocation should increase hunter success rates and thus, shouldn't season lengths then need to be adjusted accordingly? Or has this game "management" and season setting by the bio's not really been management at all for the last 25 years?
One thing I do know, is that I do hate WDFW more and more everyday. They stood silent when the initiatives of the mid 90's screwed over hunters and trappers, they continue to encourage high populations of predators, and they started the stupid category system of permits a few years ago, and now they are pimping out game for money with over-priced mufti-season permits, oh and the lack of muzzleloader units open crowds blackpowder guys into small areas. (I am not quite ready to be mad at them over resource allocation though, but I think I may almost be in that camp too.)
Back in the 80's there was a lot more county that hunters could spread-out in to go hunting. Almost all of the timber company lands were accessible to driving; they had very little gated roads. You used to be able to drive all over Vail, or simpson land out by Elma and McCleary, or Weyerhauser land down by Silver Lake. Now all those areas are gated and it crowds hunters close to the gates. I'm not sure that the hunting areas that are left can handle more pressure by eliminating resource allocation. :dunno:
:twocents:
Post by: bearpaw on December 30, 2011, 12:00:54 PM
I have more faith in county officials managing wildlife where I live. :twocents:
Post by: Mr Mykiss on December 30, 2011, 12:01:21 PM
I'm wondering if people/hunters are getting too far down the line (in years) to even remember the management practices of way back when hunting was easier/better/etc... :twocents:
Post by: Special T on December 30, 2011, 06:55:50 PM
1 The WDFW manages use a Ouija board to figure out population estimates
2 Means they have been screwing us for the last few years
If you try and figure out WHY the WDFW is doing something, and take $$$ out of the equasion, you would think you were dealing with a crazy person. :bash:
Post by: Bob33 on December 30, 2011, 07:04:15 PM
If you try and figure out WHY the WDFW is doing something, and take $$$ out of the equasion, you would think you were dealing with a crazy person. :bash:Thats funny and sad at the same time. :tinfoil:
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 30, 2011, 07:56:11 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on December 30, 2011, 08:19:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 30, 2011, 08:28:54 PM
How often do we see WDFW take something away, then "give it back" with a fee? In the end, we are still allowed to do things kinda like we used to, but we just have pay more for what we already had.
Isn't that true with most things in life? Just think of what your girlfriend used to let you do for free, now you're married and look how much you're paying now. :yike:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 30, 2011, 10:44:09 PM
if managers of WDFW cannot publicly state there position on voter intiatives,that will pro or con affect wildlife in this state, just what the hell is their Job??
Their job is to make big wages that we pay for and screw the hunters..............typical.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on December 30, 2011, 10:51:33 PM
obviously they could have a hydro-plane entered in the Columbia Cup races named Miss Management!!
....................but, they'd have issue themselves a special permit since it's a contest.