Inslee Appoints Three New Commissioiners - Carpenter is Out.

[buckfvr]

I agree for the most part BUT....being politically correct, writing letters, sugar coating issues, never really letting the opposition know how really upset we are, seems to me has led to issues being swept under the rug and outright dismissed, as our being opposed to many issues for many years and getting no where while being nice about it has, again, in my opinion been/is being construed as weakness and lack of conviction and that is how we are being treated by so many people.  Its like this is what we're going to do about it no matter what you think and say. More and more we face predetermined outcomes on issues just to show protocol has been met. I cant help but think all the older guys on here have watched the slippery slope get steeper and steeper over the last 40 years or more even.  We are losing, they arent. We are being dismissed, they arent.   

[hughjorgan]

Was Carpenter at the end of term, or resign?  Didn't realize that was in the works.

His term was up in 2020 I believe

[luvmystang67]

I agree for the most part BUT....being politically correct, writing letters, sugar coating issues, never really letting the opposition know how really upset we are, seems to me has led to issues being swept under the rug and outright dismissed, as our being opposed to many issues for many years and getting no where while being nice about it has, again, in my opinion been/is being construed as weakness and lack of conviction and that is how we are being treated by so many people.  Its like this is what we're going to do about it no matter what you think and say. More and more we face predetermined outcomes on issues just to show protocol has been met. I cant help but think all the older guys on here have watched the slippery slope get steeper and steeper over the last 40 years or more even.  We are losing, they arent. We are being dismissed, they arent.   

I'm a little more aligned here.  I don't think voicing displeasure about people impact our lives and likely think entirely differently than us is a problem.  Name calling, poor spelling, hyping of conspiracy theories are probably all bad markers.  Making assumptions based on people's resumes, voicing displeasure, talking about solutions, strategizing for how to organize are all things I think are really advantageous for us. 

I also agree that if we put some thought into our perspectives, that if someone is watching, they'll understand why.  For example, I had a conversation with a semi-liberal friend about why I cannot support any gun control initiatives.  Its not that I think gun violence isn't a problem, it is and I hate it probably more than people who don't enjoy guns, its that there's no end in sight from the left.  I used examples of WA's continuing attempts at new legislation for "just one common sense step" that has turned into 4-5 common sense steps, with no real end in sight.  I explained how we had to fight the erosion of gun rights, its not any specific single piece of legislation.  He might disagree with me, but at least he understands more fully where my position is. 

I think a similar thing can happen here.  Everyone who posts often probably feels fairly similarly, and on this topic its more likely than not that we have similar perceptions of these commissioners.  Calling them names on here, not productive.  Posting their history, informing, adding contact information, talking about potential legislation or action that might help are all great ways to move forward.  Heck, even posting about science-based articles that support our beliefs helps us speak with one voice and yeah, maybe an anti will run across it and have one micro-realization.  It all helps.

[pickardjw]

Totally agree with Stang67 here. We can voice how upset we are without disrespectful personal attacks, foul language and threats. Commissioner Anderson said they received all of that from pro-hunters regarding Spring Bear. I think the 5 things below are critical.

1. Large amount of input from hunters, sometimes it's a numbers game.
2. Dialogue can be passionate but should not disrespectful, full of foul language or threats
3. Be concise. No one wants to read a rambling, incoherent mess nor will they take away anything from it.
4. Cite your sources if possible!
5. Spell check.

[fishngamereaper]

Imo you can't bargain with these people... peacefully sitting at the table with people that listen to you but don't hear you may feel good, look good, but does no good.... IDK..

Maybe being more vocal will work ..it's worked for allot of others things in this country the last couple years... sometimes you have to become the problem to fix the problem...

Just ranting...been in this state almost 50 years and haven't seen much good come out of always being the good guys ..

[buckfvr]

Imo you can't bargain with these people... peacefully sitting at the table with people that listen to you but don't hear you may feel good, look good, but does no good.... IDK..

Maybe being more vocal will work ..it's worked for allot of others things in this country the last couple years... sometimes you have to become the problem to fix the problem...

Just ranting...been in this state almost 50 years and haven't seen much good come out of always being the good guys ..

    67 years for me.

[buckfvr]

Totally agree with Stang67 here. We can voice how upset we are without disrespectful personal attacks, foul language and threats. Commissioner Anderson said they received all of that from pro-hunters regarding Spring Bear. I think the 5 things below are critical.

1. Large amount of input from hunters, sometimes it's a numbers game.
2. Dialogue can be passionate but should not disrespectful, full of foul language or threats
3. Be concise. No one wants to read a rambling, incoherent mess nor will they take away anything from it.
4. Cite your sources if possible!
5. Spell check.

People been saying this for many years and gotten the same results.  Or should I say lack of results.

[Rainier10]

I will counter with my 30 years of hunting in this state, multiple letters, emails and speaking time at commission meetings I have gotten season dates changed, legal animal to harvest changed, GMU's opened back up for hunting and other rules implemented.  Where I have had my most success is when I state facts, back them up with their own statistics and am respectful.

[jackelope]

I agree as well.

I'm not calling anyone out here, just making the point that we need to do better and work tirelessly to keep the perceptions of hunting and hunters in a positive light.

The political/COVID section comes to mind here.  How many members on here are non-hunters and just taking all of it in?

Keep in mind that nobody can see the OT section unless they’re a member and then they have to opt into that board. People who are not members who are just surfing the web can’t see any of that.

[Blacktail Sniper]

Talking is good, feels good, sounds good, but is useless against someone that doesn't care what "you" think and is going to do what they planned on all along, they are just listening to placate you and be able to say we gave you your chance to share your opinion/position, but decided against you, "Thanks for participating..."

What they really do listen to is money. 

Why is it that whenever an anti-hunting/fishing group wants to change something that they can't necessarily easily get changed, they file or threaten to file a civil lawsuit, which win or lose, will still cost the agency time & money to defend.

It becomes a business decision as to how to spend money, do they defend it and maybe win, but it always costs money out of their budget.  Do they choose to prevent the suit and associated costs to defend against it and comply/pacify them, or spend thousands upon thousands of dollars that could be used elsewhere?

And in Washington, if they are willing to spend enough time & money, they can get something put on the ballot for vote, then they can use stuff like video from YouTube, Facebook and other social media posts to help swing emotion to their point of view while showing the consumptive user group in the worst possible light. 

Until hunters and fishermen are willing to collectively stand together AND spend the money necessary to bring civil lawsuits against WDFW, HSUS, Peta, etc., and to do that means a major part of that is gathering and using science and hard, researchable facts and statistics as a foundation for the suits, otherwise I don't really see us being any more effective than yelling into the wind most days. 

Target the administrative process and decisions that are made, compare actions to RCW & WAC codes for compliance when something is done or not done.  This where I think we have the best chance to really force change, especially in WDFW since they are driven and directed by RCW & WAC codes on how and what they can and cannot do.  If you hit in the pocket book, and I don't mean a few people refusing to buy licenses for example, that is going to get their full attention.  But it is going to cost a lot of money to do this. 

The anti-groups are and have proven they are willing to spend the money to get what they want, and as a smaller and to be honest, less organized group, that may never be something we are able to orchestrate.  "Everybody" thinks something should be done, that "somebody" should do something, but expect someone else to pay for if it costs money or takes too much time.

There are plenty of attorneys that would happily take on these type cases for outdoor user groups, but are not going to do it for free, much like you are not going to go to your job if you are not going to get paid, justice is not fair and it is certainly not free.   

That is my thoughts anyway, may not make a difference in the end, but I think it would certainly help tip the scales in our favor now and then.

[pickardjw]

That's a great point too. I recall hearing in the Jan 21st meeting one of the Commissioners say something to the tune of "low risk of litigation". That definitely factors in to their decisions.

[hunter399]

I'm not trying to be "that guy".
If the state,WDFW, want my money ,then they can uphold seasons that "science" supports.
If inslee or the state,or WDFW wants to support anti-hunters,shut down seasons,and all that. I'm fine with that,but you'll do it without my wallet in your back pocket.

Inslee is riding the double edge sword and he knows it.
Appoint these do gooder to Commission or lose them votes comes election time,on the other side shut down too many seasons ,no money,and WDFW can't operate without costing the state a huge nest egg. He is just riding the line till election time.

Just ask your self ,How much money is the state losing over this spring bear hunt. Then times that by about 50 and that's about how much they lose if hunting is gone all together.
When they spend money in court to defend hunters ,it's like an investment that pays yearly.

All Wildlife management has become is big business.
Cash is king in my opinion. We will always have some kind of hunting. If you have the money to pay to play.
The state is and are Wildlife farmer ,biologists,and so on are just yes men/woman in the chess game they play to please public opinion.
Us as hunter pay for the opportunity,most of us on this site,
Pay for the opportunity,no matter how well they are at wildlife farming.

[Russ McDonald]

Was Carpenter at the end of term, or resign?  Didn't realize that was in the works.

His term was up in 2020 I believe

Yes it was.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[hunter399]

Was Carpenter at the end of term, or resign?  Didn't realize that was in the works.

His term was up in 2020 I believe

Yes it was.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Yup,
And he really wasn't helping hunters anyway.
So I don't really see it at a loss.

[Jake Dogfish]

Was Carpenter at the end of term, or resign?  Didn't realize that was in the works.

His term was up in 2020 I believe

Yes it was.

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Yup,
And he really wasn't helping hunters anyway.
So I don't really see it at a loss.

Other than the inexplicable vote on spring bear, Carpenter was one of the more reasonable pro fishing and hunting commissioners.