Thread: WA Legislature must roll back the clock to save WDFW, resource

In 1980, according to data from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, this state fielded 360,684 paid license-holding hunters. By 1990, that number had slipped to 268,653 license holders and in 2000, USFWS data shows 214,969 paid license holders. The number in 2010 was 209,050 (up from the 194,308 licenses reported for 2005, according to the USFWS website).

What has happened?

Regulations have changed, seasons have been shifted to reduce opportunity and harvest, and a lot of hunters are convinced they’ve gotten more than one raw deal from the agency they once trusted.





http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-i...-wdfw-resource

Or try this:

http://tinyurl.com/4cyfrkh

hmmm, sounds alot like oregon... Reduced hunting opportunities, almost doubling some of the fees in a depression. I'll probably get my shellfish license this year and my fishing license but i'll be going to Idaho to hunt this year. They have a general season on mule deer so it wont take me ten years to draw a tag.

Dont forget dumb things like Bears/Cat were not a problem people were PAYING to hunt them. Then it is voted no dog hunting. Now less people hunting = less revenue. Bears/Cats end up in the Suburbs and are eating peoples kids. Hands are thrown up in the air demanding something be done. Now the states (tax payers) are PAYING "approved" hunters to deal with the "problem" animals.

So we went from revenue and no problem, to problem, to less problem but spending money to do it. I just can not understand things like this.

Yep, i think the anti hunting group has successfully neutered many Fish and Wildlife Depts. I hate saying it but i dont want my money going to a neutered fish and game dept which is why i would rather pay out of state license fees to Idaho, at least their pair still seems to be intact.

Dave, I don't know if you remember the late '70's to late '80's when from Dog Mountain to Soda Springs, especially up toward Mt Adams, a hunter dang near had to pack his own stump! A guy couldn't even go up the 100 line of Winston Creek without meeting 50 rigs before the 500 line. That was almost the end of my hunting, as it was for so many others.

That being said, its tough to spend $160 for deer, elk, bear and cougar, along with special applications and a fishing license with times being tough right now. As one on a fixed income I know it is something I have to budget for and I bet young folks with kids have an even tougher time.

Washington has screwed themselves I believe. Too many believe Fish and Wildlife don't do a good job with our deer and elk herds and either have quit hunting or are sporatic from year to year. I know plenty personally that quit hunting completely and are perfectly happy just target shooting, others just hunt without any tags or license even though the penalty is quite stiff. But the largest number of hunters that don't hunt anymore now spend their money out of State in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I personally know of many that do just that.

Originally Posted by 44 Flattop

Dave, I don't know if you remember the late '70's to late '80's when from Dog Mountain to Soda Springs, especially up toward Mt Adams, a hunter dang near had to pack his own stump! A guy couldn't even go up the 100 line of Winston Creek without meeting 50 rigs before the 500 line. That was almost the end of my hunting, as it was for so many others.

That being said, its tough to spend $160 for deer, elk, bear and cougar, along with special applications and a fishing license with times being tough right now. As one on a fixed income I know it is something I have to budget for and I bet young folks with kids have an even tougher time.

Washington has screwed themselves I believe. Too many believe Fish and Wildlife don't do a good job with our deer and elk herds and either have quit hunting or are sporatic from year to year. I know plenty personally that quit hunting completely and are perfectly happy just target shooting, others just hunt without any tags or license even though the penalty is quite stiff. But the largest number of hunters that don't hunt anymore now spend their money out of State in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I personally know of many that do just that.

We are all on "fixed incomes." Nobody gave me a salary increase because the cost of gas went up, and with it the cost of groceries and everything else.

You are right on so many things. I've seen way too many people take their hunting and fishing money out of state. Point the finger of blame at Oly and you will be spot on.

The Washington Department of NO Fish and "Watchable" Wildlife has so screwed the pooch on management that only a thorough house cleaning will change things, and with it must come a change in philosophy that places the interests of hunters and anglers ahead of greenies and wolf lovers and all the other non-contributing twits out there who wrongly believe they have some moral right to dictate to us how to fish and hunt, and when to do it.

Game cops will become "wardens" again and stop treating every sportsman as a suspect. They would be given a choice: If you want to help people catch fish and kill game, you have a job.
If you want to dress up in camos and run around with a machine gun looking for dope growers, go get a job with the sheriff's department or WSP.

There are too many people in the WDFW who are waaaaay too interested in wolf reintroduction and not nearly interested enough in making sure we have healthy deer and elk herds, longer seasons, more genuine opportunity and a minimum amont of regulations that are understandable without an attorney.

We need to get hatcheries back up and running at full production, use rearing pens in more lakes to raise more catchable trout; pump the rivers and streams full of steelhead and salmon smolts.

And so on and so forth. This includes a G-A-M-E Commission that has no members who are not active anglers and hunters; if they don't pull a trigger or set a hook, they don't belong on the commission, period. And I'm not talking about some political twink who's brother hunts or who "used to hunt when I was a kid." I'm talking about people who come to a commission meeting and can trade small talk about the salmon they caught or the bass they hooked out in the Potholes, or the buck they shot or the grouse they cooked up "just so."

All of this takes money and the guts to recognize that it is time to tell some people to take a hike. The legislature will need to readjust its priorities. Which state agency or department should we eliminate?

DOE?
DSHS?
VETERANS AFFAIRS?

Originally Posted by Dave Workman

Which state agency or department should we eliminate?

DOE?
DSHS?
VETERANS AFFAIRS?

How about all of them.

Originally Posted by Dave Workman

I've seen way too many people take their hunting and fishing money out of state. Point the finger of blame at Oly and you will be spot on.

I agree ONE HUNDRED PERCENT. I would guess I spend $7 out of every $10 out of State. Maybe more. But we have a wonderful opportunity to observe a LOT of game and actually have a chance of killing something nice. Last year in Oregon my son and I watched dozens of bucks everyday for a week before we went ahead and killed something. Same thing in Idaho last year and in Montana the year before we look at over 500 bucks in 7 days before we went ahead and killed ours. You sure don't see something like that in Washington. Though if you do, please feel free to let me know where.....!

The Washington Department of NO Fish and "Watchable" Wildlife has so screwed the pooch on management that only a thorough house cleaning will change things, and with it must come a change in philosophy that places the interests of hunters and anglers ahead of greenies and wolf lovers and all the other non-contributing twits out there who wrongly believe they have some moral right to dictate to us how to fish and hunt, and when to do it.

In trying to appease the West Side Leftists Oly will destroy Fish and Game as we know it.

Game cops will become "wardens" again and stop treating every sportsman as a suspect. They would be given a choice: If you want to help people catch fish and kill game, you have a job.
If you want to dress up in camos and run around with a machine gun looking for dope growers, go get a job with the sheriff's department or WSP.

Another of my pet peeves. Overally agressive wannabe commando's is how many view game 'cops' now. You are correct in saying put the 'Warden' back in Game 'Warden'. Personally I've had only 1 run in with our locals and that was from parking too close to a gate. I agree I was probably in the wrong even though the gate was seldom opened. Though I wasn't even issued a warning citation I had the greatest of temptations to open my mouth and let him understand there is such a thing as 'favorable PR'. He obviously knew nothing about how to work with the public in a polite manner. That needs to change, change in a BIG way and change now.

.... and not nearly interested enough in making sure we have healthy deer and elk herds, longer seasons, more genuine opportunity and a minimum amont of regulations that are understandable without an attorney.

That is (or should be) a no brainer to anyone outside of Olympia....

We need to get hatcheries back up and running at full production, use rearing pens in more lakes to raise more catchable trout; pump the rivers and streams full of steelhead and salmon smolts.

OK, now you are just trying to piss me off! If there is one thing that completely enrages me, it is the fishing.....the lost opportunities that Olympia has utterly destroyed. For a couple generations. I quit fishing in Washington (go out of state now) because of how fishing has been mismanaged and destroyed. Last year I bought my first fishing license since the early '80's and still couldn't bring myself to even wet a line.

I agree about the hatcheries. But what makes me foam at the mouth is what they allowed for nearly 30 years as to the upper watersheds of the Cispus and Cowlitz to name a couple, in the interest of MONEY. How many years did we hear about a disease in the upper watersheds that was given as the reason to not truck fish or build some sort of fish ladder, whether at the dams or using Klickitat creek? And as soon as the relicensing for the Dam dams came up and Tacoma power needed to get their 40 year license renewed, man were they willing to start trucking fish like there was no tomorrow, with promises of more. All the sudden that 'disease' just disappeared. I would like to know who's palms were greased during those decades of barren water above basically Mayfield dam. I grew up on the Tilton during the '60's and know what fishing was like and how Tacoma Power and Olympia let the rivers die over the next 10 years.

And so on and so forth. This includes a G-A-M-E Commission that has no members who are not active anglers and hunters; if they don't pull a trigger or set a hook, they don't belong on the commission, period. And I'm not talking about some political twink who's brother hunts or who "used to hunt when I was a kid." I'm talking about people who come to a commission meeting and can trade small talk about the salmon they caught or the bass they hooked out in the Potholes, or the buck they shot or the grouse they cooked up "just so."

Very well stated. Unfortunately politicians control F&G and I don't see any change anytime soon. Have you ever talked with Mick Cope about this? He's a bird hunter but not big game. If you could get ahold of him perhaps he should shed some light on anything ever changing. I've lost touch with Mick over the years, he used to coach my son before he was promoted and moved to Olympia as a bigwig.

44

Originally Posted by 44 Flattop

Dave, I don't know if you remember the late '70's to late '80's when from Dog Mountain to Soda Springs, especially up toward Mt Adams, a hunter dang near had to pack his own stump! A guy couldn't even go up the 100 line of Winston Creek without meeting 50 rigs before the 500 line. That was almost the end of my hunting, as it was for so many others.

That being said, its tough to spend $160 for deer, elk, bear and cougar, along with special applications and a fishing license with times being tough right now. As one on a fixed income I know it is something I have to budget for and I bet young folks with kids have an even tougher time.

Washington has screwed themselves I believe. Too many believe Fish and Wildlife don't do a good job with our deer and elk herds and either have quit hunting or are sporatic from year to year. I know plenty personally that quit hunting completely and are perfectly happy just target shooting, others just hunt without any tags or license even though the penalty is quite stiff. But the largest number of hunters that don't hunt anymore now spend their money out of State in places like Montana, Idaho and Wyoming. I personally know of many that do just that.

Well said!

I fit into the category of "used to hunt" in Washington. As many of you have clearly stated, the state is not focused on providing the hunter for fisher better game management, but just the opposite with more regulation. As a young lad in the 60's, growing up, my father and I would go upland hunting almost every weekend in eastern Washington. It was great, lots of natural game and regulations for upland hunting that consisted of one sheet of paper, printed on both side. Back then, you could ask a farmer for permission and usually get it with directions on where to find the best hunting. Not any more! Now our wonderful state resources have been reduced to booklets of regulations a quarter of an inch thick and game cops to enforce everywhere. Common hunters and fishers are now treated like criminals until proven innocent. Been to a salt water boat launch during salmon season lately? If you have, you get my point. It's sad to watch, I remember yesteryear and how wonderful our state was to hunt and fish.

Now I hunt out of state. I no longer provide my home state with any of my money to manage what I consider just another revenue stream to be used for something else besides what the hunting and fishing fees are collected for, game management/enhancement. In my past 10 years of hunting out of state, I have noticed how friendly the "flyover" states laws and fees schedules are for out of state hunters. Most of these states are large in farming, low in population (less than 1.5M), conservative, and understand that folks still like to hunt and fish. I have a lot of military friends that move around and find these wonderful places to hunt. Many of them are NW natives and have decided to settle in less regulated states. I have hunted in the Dakotas, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas. In the Dakota's, they used to be really good, but with all the hunting shows, commercialization of hunting, it is getting very hard to find "free" hunting in these states. Those states have realized that commercialized hunting brings in big dollars to the local economy's and have adjusted their hunting regulations accordingly to limit the amount of time out of state hunters can come to hunt. So, the way I see it, either the state over-regulates access to hunting, or if it is good hunting, someone will make a profit on it and limit the hunting through cost.

What to do? Lets face it, hunting is becoming expensive. It shouldn't be for the rich, and the common guy doesn't want to be treated like common criminal to go hunting. The key to this dilemma is good landowner and hunter relationships. I learned this when I worked my way through college in the 70's when I worked in the farming community. Years after I left college, I had access to land that most hunters would drool over. I kept up those relationships with those farmers by occasionally helping with farming chores for a day or two during harvest (a very busy time). It goes a long way to preserve the access to the lands you want to hunt. Yes, most of it was posted or had locked gates that didn't allow access to really nice areas to hunt. Landowners want to be respected, and they want to allow hunting without risk of damage to their property or themselves personally.
I think of all the states that have the best hunter to land owner cooperation, is Kansas. The main reason is that the state provides a liability insurance to the landowner that protects him from land damage or hunter injury on his property. This legal liability mitigation eases the relationship between landowners and hunters, encourages cooperation that allows a lot of private land to now become available to the hunter. The state of Kansas also puts out a booklet (print and online) that provides details about these private lands, how to gain access, where to park, what game is available, special instructions on where to and where not to hunt. It works really well. It is a system that works, we don't need to invent one for Washington, all we have to do is follow one that is successful. Oh, did I mention that managing the game department is efficient? So much so, it is reflected in the licensing fees for both in and out of state hunters and fishers. Compare the out of state fees to our in state fees and then think about it. Would you rather pay for great hunting and fishing? Or would you pay for the crappy over-regulation we have here in our state. I'm voting with my dollars. Maybe when this state runs out of money, it will be demonstrated the experiment has failed and maybe, just maybe other other states have have proven regulation/management systems that work and they can work here too.