I'm sure you're aware of the multiple ESA listings and federal requirements that have become more expensive to deal with since then. Wanting to go back to the "good ole days" is common, especially among anglers. Often anglers forget the negatives and only remember the good things from the past. It's also important to point out that the way our fisheries were managed then has certainly contributed to the issues we're experiencing now.
Matt,
That explains why I don't remember it. In 1993, I was 13 years old. My only experience within fish and wildlife at that point was volunteering at the Issaquah salmon hatchery.
And tell me how that's been working with all of your elected officials? LOL
I think that electing the commission could favor the hunting and angling communities. Most voters pay very little attention to anything besides the federal elections.
Except that the Commission candidates with the most campaign financial backing would be those backed by the commercial fishing industry and tribes. And campaign war chests generally correlate with election wins.
Ding ding ding we have a winner.
The recreational fishing and hunting industry in Washington accounts for billions of dollars in economic activity. The commercial fishing industry and tribes don’t come close to that amount of money.
Money doesn't get people elected anymore. Lies and shaming get people elected. You talk bad about tribal fishing you'll be labeled a racist and will not be electable..
Bird/animal watching is bigger business...so be mindful of what the public wants if everyone believes in a democracy of majority rules.
www.allaboutbirds.org
The majority of the public has more money, but they’re not going to be as motivated to spend it on electing WDFW commissioners.Bird/animal watching is bigger business...so be mindful of what the public wants if everyone believes in a democracy of majority rules.
Perhaps the commission is EXACTLY what the public wants -by the numbers it looks like it? Going to take new angles to get special interest groups (hunting/fishing) to their goals..which many have said, is not splinter an already minority group up even more.
"...and those wildlife voyeurs spent $75.9 billion just to watch, which is almost three times what hunters spent and nearly $30 billion more than recreational fishers. Perhaps even more surprising to find out, in today's digital parlance, wildlife watching is trending!"
Birds Put Billions into U.S. Economy: Latest U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report
From the Autumn 2018 issue of Living Bird magazine. Subscribe now. This year the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published the latest edition of its national survey of outdoor recreation: how many people participate and what sorts of associated purchases they make in pursuit of their hobbies.
Hunters and fishermen spend billions on their sports, but the track records of anglers at least indicates apathy when it comes to campaign contributions. Ergo, commercials and tribes win.
Something about correlation and causation.
Around 80 some percent of the time the biggest spender wins...
About 85% in 2018
About 80% in 2020
Haven't seen the 2022 numbers, but there were a couple of super well funded Senate candidates who lost, but probably it was more an issue of candidate quality in those cases...no amount was going to be enough.
coloradosun.com
A friend of mine shared this with me. It's about Colorado, but it seems to common in many states.
Hunting groups quit CPW’s Colorado Outdoor Partnership, citing lack of focus on wildlife
Three hunter organizations have quit the Colorado Outdoor Partnership, citing concerns that the group was not addressing wildlife challenges
