The department gets money from the general fund, meaning every taxpayer is putting money into their operations. We all get an equal say in how resources are managed - which is exactly how this country and state were designed to function.
Proposed Legislation: WDFW Commissioners To Receive Salary
- Thread starter Long_Rod_Silvers
- Start date
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Then licenses should be free. The way it should work if people were good and behaved properly. They would mind their own business when it comes to issues in which they are not invested.
The idea of equal say in how things are managed in this country and state is laughable and has never been true.
Those who pay up or scream the loudest get an inordinate amount of say.
Last edited:
Start screamin'?
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Have been for 40 years.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Do you have a Washington State fishing license ?
If not, with no skin in the game, I can't see why you, as a non resident without an out of state license, should have any input here.
Lol
So, you agree that for example those without hunting licenses have no skin in the game should have no input on hunting in the state?
Do we agree or ????
No
We do not agree, unsurprisingly as you evidently did not comprehend what I clearly wrote.
Citizens of this state, (the one you do not live in), through their taxes help fund the resource management of this state, therefore they have a reasonable expectation of input via voting, and other forms of participation in resource management issues. They may not like the outcomes, process, or anything about it, but they are afforded the opportunity due to their residence here, and associated funding of the relevant agencies via their taxes.
You are not a citizen of this state, pay no state taxes, and apparently do not have an out of state license of any sort to hunt or fish in Washington.
You are not afforded the same rights and privileges as a Washington citizen has, due your status as an out of state resident.
However, you are certainly free to write the relevant agencies and express your views, like telling them licenses should be free...
Clear ?
Ya know, like you always preach....
Local control and all that....agreed ?
Lol
We do not agree, unsurprisingly as you evidently did not comprehend what I clearly wrote.
Citizens of this state, (the one you do not live in), through their taxes help fund the resource management of this state, therefore they have a reasonable expectation of input via voting, and other forms of participation in resource management issues. They may not like the outcomes, process, or anything about it, but they are afforded the opportunity due to their residence here, and associated funding of the relevant agencies via their taxes.
You are not a citizen of this state, pay no state taxes, and apparently do not have an out of state license of any sort to hunt or fish in Washington.
You are not afforded the same rights and privileges as a Washington citizen has, due your status as an out of state resident.
However, you are certainly free to write the relevant agencies and express your views, like telling them licenses should be free...
Clear ?
Ya know, like you always preach....
Local control and all that....agreed ?
Lol
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
No
We do not agree, unsurprisingly as you evidently did not comprehend what I clearly wrote.
Citizens of this state, (the one you do not live in), through their taxes help fund the resource management of this state, therefore they have a reasonable expectation of input via voting, and other forms of participation in resource management issues. They may not like the outcomes, process, or anything about it, but they are afforded the opportunity due to their residence here, and associated funding of the relevant agencies via their taxes.
You are not a citizen of this state, pay no state taxes, and apparently do not have an out of state license of any sort to hunt or fish in Washington.
You are not afforded the same rights and privileges as a Washington citizen has, due your status as an out of state resident.
However, you are certainly free to write the relevant agencies and express your views, like telling them licenses should be free...
Clear ?
Ya know, like you always preach....
Local control and all that....agreed ?
Lol
Hmmm I wonder how much money Washington gets from Pittman/Robert's funding?
This act is by the way almost entirely funded by gun purchasers.. 91%
Hmm guess that makes me a stakeholder in Washington state wildlife issues even though I've only been a license and or tag holder in the state for 40 of the last 52 years
So you are saying those who bird watch, hike, snowshoe, swim, or participate in wildlife photography should purchase license to have an equal say? More licenses and more money for the govt is your solution? I know tons of folks willing to do that. Pretty much everyone I know. Are we sure we want to go with this model? If they get an equal say, I think you’ll find watchers outnumber hunters (finned or fur) by a large margin so an equal say may not be so equal to those of us on this board. I feel we pay a license fee for the impact we have in the form of harvest. If you want a council made up of folks who don’t fish, don’t hunt…don’t harvest, put licenses in place for observers as well, give them an equal say and see what comes of it.
BTW….every person I know/work with would feel they are invested in the management of of wildlife and wild places. Dozens of people. Everyone hikes and enjoys wild places and things. Very few…the vast minority hunt or fish.
It’s just not as simple as you think. IMO the council probably represents WA residents as a whole. I may not like it. I don’t agree with everything that comes out of it but as the minority we have to have the loudest voice and make our case.
No different than any minority….ever. Right or wrong.
Gyrfalcon22
Legend
With respect to all others who posted, this one says it all to me. It hits the nail on the head perfectly !
Washington by the numbers
- Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 2.3%
- Total paid hunting license holders: 174,660
- Total hunting license, tags, permits and stamps: 685,780
The 97.7% of residents who did not buy any type of hunting license, but contribute to wildlife/wildlands management should have input too.
- Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 2.3%
- Total paid hunting license holders: 174,660
- Total hunting license, tags, permits and stamps: 685,780
The 97.7% of residents who did not buy any type of hunting license, but contribute to wildlife/wildlands management should have input too.
Pittman-Robertson Act (not Robert's, btw) funding is entirely from firearms, ammunition, and Archery equipment.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
That's what I just said..
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
I thought I was pretty clear.. I want people with vested interest in wildlife management to have a louder voice than those who do not.
I have no vested interest in golf therefore I should keep my mouth shut about how public golf courses are managed and I shouldn't be on a body governing public golf courses. Especially if I hate golf and want the sport to go away.
Some views should not be present in the fish and wildlife commission.. regardless of how that position represents the people of the state.. most people in the state do not care about fish and wildlife.
Rob Allen
Life of the Party
Nope. I disagree.Washington by the numbers
- Percent of residents with paid hunting licenses: 2.3%
- Total paid hunting license holders: 174,660
- Total hunting license, tags, permits and stamps: 685,780
The 97.7% of residents who did not buy any type of hunting license, but contribute to wildlife/wildlands management should have input too.
You missed my point. Everyone I know. Literally….everyone has a vested interest in wildlife and/or wild places. They may not harvest or utilize in the same way as those of us on this board but they have a vested interest. Wildlife and wild places are a mixed use resource with the majority of users not harvesting. They should have a say, whether I agree with it or not.
Yard Sale
Life of the Party
I don't think Rob is saying that anglers/hunters should run all of how a ecosystem is managed. They should have an outsized vote in how fishing/hunting regulations are set. That makes sense since they know more about how those regs affect the system. He's not saying they should run the EPA, they should have a say in F&G. Seems fair to me.
That said, this is a poor argument specifically because of your poor choice of examples. A golf course in a drought stricken area(think most of the west) has a direct impact on rivers and fish. Same with farming, to a much bigger extent.
All I'm saying is there are 2 components here. General ecosystem issues and then at a much smaller level, specific usage regs.
That said, this is a poor argument specifically because of your poor choice of examples. A golf course in a drought stricken area(think most of the west) has a direct impact on rivers and fish. Same with farming, to a much bigger extent.
All I'm saying is there are 2 components here. General ecosystem issues and then at a much smaller level, specific usage regs.
Exactly... Should specific usage regs be set by those opposed to said specific usage?
In violation to their own mission statements and in opposition to recommendations by the regional biologists?
The system is flawed.
Yard Sale
Life of the Party
See: Hatchery fish issue. Especially brood stock fish.
Everybody loves to bitch and moan about NFS, but at their core they are for the survival of natural genetics of wild steelhead. They are a group of fisher folks mostly, but their goal isn't to increase fishing opportunities. Its to ensure wild steelhead genetics. Thats why I'm a member.