Proposed Legislation: WDFW Commissioners To Receive Salary

[jasmillo]

So as recreational fisherman, we should not have a say in how commercial fishing seasons/quotas are set? What about the tribes? Maybe not the greatest example because the use cases for all groups are so similar but in the end, same concept. Different users…same resource. If specific usage regs impact the experience of another user group, they should have a say.

I feel like there are lots of examples of this. What about mix use trails. Hike/bike/horse. Are we saying hikers should not have a say in the regulations set for bikers and vice versa when the resource they are using is the same and one users useage will directly impact the experience of the other? Should their concerns not be considered?

 

[Anonymous member 148]

It's pretty easy to understand what Rob is saying here... 97% of the state that "enjoys" wildlife, hiking, biking, bird watching, etc etc does not have to pay for a tag or license to do those activities. Make them pay for a license if they want an equal say in the commission.

 

[ianpadron]

Our legislators are not paid very well - certainly not rates that would allow them to live comfortably when accounting for cost of living in Washington. https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.03.013


Last time I checked, anglers and hunters are a majority on the commission. Please show the "imbalance" you're referring to - as well as how the commission is not reflective of the political body in charge.

MAYBE they didn't listen to you for another reason. I've certainly read enough of your comments to know that there's at least a chance that what you want them to do is either a bad idea or just not possible.

Quantifiably false that the commission is comprised of a majority of hunters and anglers. I know the exact number who identify as one or the other, and I'll give ya a chance to read up on the topic and enlighten yourself.

 

[Stonedfish]

It's pretty easy to understand what Rob is saying here... 97% of the state that "enjoys" wildlife, hiking, biking, bird watching, etc etc does not have to pay for a tag or license to do those activities. Make them pay for a license if they want an equal say in the commission.

That is true, but many of those activities require purchasing a pass.
Like if you want to go bird watching and park in a state park or on DNR or WDFW controlled land, you may need a pass.
SF

 

[ianpadron]

Man, the idea of the current commissioners getting paid to screw sportsmen boils my blood.

The precipitous decline for hunters specifically in WA started in 1996 when a citizens vote was used to ban hound hunting for predators, against the recommendation of agency biologists and the sportsmen who actually interact with the state's game animals.

The steep decrease in ungulate herds is directly related to the uptick in predators that followed. In addition to the cats absolutely hammering juvenile elk and all age classes of mule deer (look up how many deer an adult cougar eats per year), the wolf population began to explode shortly thereafter. Hounds are not used to hunt wolves, and other western states experienced the same canine blow-up, but WA is the only state with a recovered population of them that isn't keeping them in check. The wolves are directly responsible for a significant portion of the adult elk predation in the Blues, what used to be some of the best elk hunting in the country.

WA state has, for lack of better terms, a shit load of bears. More than Montana. More than Idaho. Both of those states however have over the counter Spring bear hunts every year, offer incentivized non-resident tags in units over objective...and STILL have healthy bear populations. WDFW has lengthened the fall season, removed the East/West harvest limit, and added an additional bear tag in an effort to increase bear harvest...yet the commission bans Spring bear hunting...

WA state is under attack in many ways, but the WDFW commission is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of a supposedly unbiased collection of citizens being hijacked by special interest groups. Why is a group made up of less than 25% sportsmen deciding the fate of all sportsmen? And why in the hell would we pay them to do it?

Un-ironically, the same demographic who screeched "FOLLLOW THE SCIENCE" the past 3 years don't actually give a flying f#@! about the science of predator management, and literally told the WDFW bios to pound sand with their bear hunt decision.

If a single unit in MT, WY, or ID experienced the drop in ungulate herds that WA state sees year after year...heads would be rolling, seasons would be drastically altered, and predators would have an open season (Idaho is a prime example)...yet in WA, antlerless tags are handed out like candy, predators are essentially off limits, and your license fee is still guaranteed to go up every couple of years.

I'm way too fired up for a Wednesday night, but holy cow does this thread make me happy I got out of WA when I did.

 

[Anonymous member 148]

That is true, but many of those activities require purchasing a pass.
Like if you want to go bird watching and park in a state park or on DNR or WDFW controlled land, you may need a pass.
SF

Hunters and fishers have to purchase the same parking and day use passes along with their hunting/fishing license too.

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

...

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.

Really, you have not vested interest in golf courses that drain your beloved trout stream to keep their grass green ...? We all have interests in one way or another, even if we don't realize it, even of it is just to preserve what we have for future generations.

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.

"Some views should not be present"? So much for the Constitution, yah know, that pesky free speech amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Sometimes black and white thinking does not work well. Nothing personal Rob, I hope you have a good one!!

cheers

 

[Billy]

Man, the idea of the current commissioners getting paid to screw sportsmen boils my blood.

The precipitous decline for hunters specifically in WA started in 1996 when a citizens vote was used to ban hound hunting for predators, against the recommendation of agency biologists and the sportsmen who actually interact with the state's game animals.

The steep decrease in ungulate herds is directly related to the uptick in predators that followed. In addition to the cats absolutely hammering juvenile elk and all age classes of mule deer (look up how many deer an adult cougar eats per year), the wolf population began to explode shortly thereafter. Hounds are not used to hunt wolves, and other western states experienced the same canine blow-up, but WA is the only state with a recovered population of them that isn't keeping them in check. The wolves are directly responsible for a significant portion of the adult elk predation in the Blues, what used to be some of the best elk hunting in the country.

WA state has, for lack of better terms, a shit load of bears. More than Montana. More than Idaho. Both of those states however have over the counter Spring bear hunts every year, offer incentivized non-resident tags in units over objective...and STILL have healthy bear populations. WDFW has lengthened the fall season, removed the East/West harvest limit, and added an additional bear tag in an effort to increase bear harvest...yet the commission bans Spring bear hunting...

WA state is under attack in many ways, but the WDFW commission is perhaps one of the most obvious examples of a supposedly unbiased collection of citizens being hijacked by special interest groups. Why is a group made up of less than 25% sportsmen deciding the fate of all sportsmen? And why in the hell would we pay them to do it?

Un-ironically, the same demographic who screeched "FOLLLOW THE SCIENCE" the past 3 years don't actually give a flying f#@! about the science of predator management, and literally told the WDFW bios to pound sand with their bear hunt decision.

If a single unit in MT, WY, or ID experienced the drop in ungulate herds that WA state sees year after year...heads would be rolling, seasons would be drastically altered, and predators would have an open season (Idaho is a prime example)...yet in WA, antlerless tags are handed out like candy, predators are essentially off limits, and your license fee is still guaranteed to go up every couple of years.

I'm way too fired up for a Wednesday night, but holy cow does this thread make me happy I got out of WA when I did.

We had such cool migratory herds too. The Methow for example being the classic western mule deer type migration. Now people see a few around the orchards and think the herd is doing A OK.

And the Blues were the same way. Yeah I bring up the elk a lot. Guess what the mule deer are all but gone from that area. Probably why the elk are getting so chomped. All that is left.

The Blues could potentially be the worst management of ungulates in the entire United States. I firmly believe that. You hike around and all the historic migration routes are grown over. Patterns lost from the landscape.

The old hunting camps are all grown over as well. Cool to explore. Sad to think about.

 

[Brian Miller]

It's pretty easy to understand what Rob is saying here... 97% of the state that "enjoys" wildlife, hiking, biking, bird watching, etc etc does not have to pay for a tag or license to do those activities. Make them pay for a license if they want an equal say in the commission.

That is true, but many of those activities require purchasing a pass.
Like if you want to go bird watching and park in a state park or on DNR or WDFW controlled land, you may need a pass.
SF

This all kinda reminds me of when we moved into our current place. At that time it was a suburban-agricultural zoning with small farms intermixed with developments with 1+ acre lots, and a few developments with denser lots. Up the road aways there was a quarter mile dirt race track. Our family spent many a Summer Friday and or Saturday night at the track watching various stock car class and midget events, demo derbies, and even street races of fans' family cars; Ford 3-row station wagon vs a stock Camaro vs a BMW with the only requirements being standard seat belts and helmets. Fireworks on the 4th of July... It had a great family atmosphere. Then a developer bought a 10 acre farm across the street and built houses on 1700 sq ft lots. Soon the track owner started getting complaints and had to get the racers to install mufflers. Not good enough. The county said he had to install a 10-foot high acoustic fence around the perimeter of the development adjacent to the track. Not good enough, had to restrict hours, not good enough... The track owner decided to quit and had to sink a ton of money into cleanup so he could sell the property to another developer of 1700' lots.

 

[Matt Paluch]

Quantifiably false that the commission is comprised of a majority of hunters and anglers. I know the exact number who identify as one or the other, and I'll give ya a chance to read up on the topic and enlighten yourself.

Covered this a few pages ago - pretty quickly after my post.

 

[Stonedfish]

Hunters and fishers have to purchase the same parking and day use passes along with their hunting/fishing license too.

Not true in all cases. It depends on what land you wish to access. A WDFW vehicle access pass come free with most fishing and hunting license purchases.
SF

 

[Dustin Chromers]

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.

The department used to be funded via licence sales and revenue generated within like violation fines etc. The department has been less effective and a more useless agency since the change was made to fund them out of the general fund. The department has absolutely zero incentive to do a good job say anything with the current scheme. They have incentive to spend their budget, nothing more.

 

[Anonymous member 148]

The department used to be funded via licence sales and revenue generated within like violation fines etc. The department has been less effective and a more useless agency since the change was made to fund them out of the general fund. The department has absolutely zero incentive to do a good job say anything with the current scheme. They have incentive to spend their budget, nothing more.

Then what would be fair is to do away with all fishing and hunting licenses since they are funded by the general fund. Everyone already pays hundreds of different access fees and boat fees and stickers and passes... Maybe just keep tags for some rare hunting opportunities.

 

[Matt Paluch]

The department used to be funded via licence sales and revenue generated within like violation fines etc. The department has been less effective and a more useless agency since the change was made to fund them out of the general fund. The department has absolutely zero incentive to do a good job say anything with the current scheme. They have incentive to spend their budget, nothing more.

I don’t remember a time when the department was funded completely by license sales and fines. I do know that recreational hunters and anglers account for about 30% of department revenue (this includes the revenue from federal excise taxes). Your other comments are ridiculous.

 

[Matt Paluch]

Then what would be fair is to do away with all fishing and hunting licenses since they are funded by the general fund. Everyone already pays hundreds of different access fees and boat fees and stickers and passes... Maybe just keep tags for some rare hunting opportunities.

Sounds like a poacher’s dream.

 

[Anonymous member 148]

Sounds like a poacher’s dream.

How? There would still be the same rules and regs, needing enforcement. We only would not have to pay for service we don't receive.

 

[Matt Paluch]

How? There would still be the same rules and regs, needing enforcement. We only would not have to pay for service we don't receive.

You do receive service. Poachers can lose their licenses, and are easier to deal with when a license system exists. If we go to full funding through the general fund, hunters and anglers will lose almost all leverage they currently have.

 

[Mossback]

WDFW seeks public comments on 2023-2024 hunting seasons

OLYMPIA – From Feb. 15 through March 27, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will accept written public comments on proposed rule changes to regulations for 2023-2024 hunting seasons. Proposals included in this round of rulemaking include those related to landowner hunting permits...

wdfw.wa.gov

 

[Canuck from Kansas]

Perhaps this thread could be sent as a public comment

cheers

 

[Anonymous member 148]

You do receive service. Poachers can lose their licenses, and are easier to deal with when a license system exists. If we go to full funding through the general fund, hunters and anglers will lose almost all leverage they currently have.

Then issue licensing like they do for old people and vets. Free but you still need the license. Poaching has to be... enforced, license or no license if there's hardly any enforcement what's the difference. Also what leverage do hunters and fishers have? Next to nothing?