7 replies [Last post]
Offline
Location: PT,WA
Joined: 10/03/2007
Posts: 16
HUNTERS VOTE

I have been hearing alot about WDFW wanting to chang alot of laws. I think hunters should have the right to vote on the hunting regs. Not only does it alow hunters to have a say but they should also beable to perpose new laws. Let me know how all you other hunters feel about this.
Big Bucker

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
HUNTERS VOTE

Unfortunately, I believe a 50% of wdfw is made up of antihunters 25% are militant anti gunowners and the remaining portion are actual sportsmen. That being said, I believe that every year they have a confrence to discuss the potential new laws. Ive been to one and their minds are pretty much made up before they even hear any suggestions. We can only really vote for legislators that have us in mind and to make our ideas heard. Which is hard to do with our last two govenors being locke, and whats her dogs name. We can always hope for the next term I guess.

Offline
Location: OlyWa
Joined: 04/27/2005
Posts: 472
HUNTERS VOTE

I doubt that we really would want hunting laws made by voting.. Not only to we fight amongst ourselves (Duck hunters don't support predator hunters and archers don't support rifle hunters, etc.) but then throw in the "Seattle" vote.

Offline
Location: Eatonville, Wa
Joined: 08/26/2007
Posts: 610
HUNTERS VOTE

one thing is for certian washington stat e definately is in need of an overhaul of wdfw and the regs. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime but hopefully we will see it. At some point common sense has to come into play. If you look at the numbers by them selves the wdfw has made a lot of huge mistakes for instance look at the st helens elk heard 12,000 head of elk, maybe if they took a less restrictive stand on elk they wouldnt be out of control. Look at the cougar population since the loss of hound hunting(I dont hound hunt myself) I believe that something like 100 cougars were harvested last year statewide. And Im sure with the current population exploding its going to start cutting into deer populations heavily. But they wont do anything about that, Im sure they'll just start cutting down deer tags until you wont get to hunt without winning the lottery. Its just horrible and myself Im not sure what we can do about it.

Offline
Location: Seattle, WA
Joined: 08/29/2007
Posts: 190
HUNTERS VOTE
billythekidrock wrote:
I doubt that we really would want hunting laws made by voting.. Not only to we fight amongst ourselves (Duck hunters don't support predator hunters and archers don't support rifle hunters, etc.) but then throw in the "Seattle" vote.

WTF does that mean ? I live in Seattle!

Offline
Location: Western Washington
Joined: 02/12/2008
Posts: 15
HUNTERS VOTE
ELK-AHOLIC wrote:
billythekidrock wrote:
I doubt that we really would want hunting laws made by voting.. Not only to we fight amongst ourselves (Duck hunters don't support predator hunters and archers don't support rifle hunters, etc.) but then throw in the "Seattle" vote.

WTF does that mean ? I live in Seattle!

It means that although there are some people in Seattle that are conservative voters and would support hunting rules, a majority of the Seattle area is liberal and would be against lessening the hunting rules. Just look at major elections in the state, nearly every single county is conservative except for the few big ones (King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Whatcom) yet the big ones sway the state's votes to make us one of the most liberal states in the country.

Offline
Location: OlyWa
Joined: 04/27/2005
Posts: 472
HUNTERS VOTE
ELK-AHOLIC wrote:
billythekidrock wrote:
I doubt that we really would want hunting laws made by voting.. Not only to we fight amongst ourselves (Duck hunters don't support predator hunters and archers don't support rifle hunters, etc.) but then throw in the "Seattle" vote.

WTF does that mean ? I live in Seattle!

See post above. Nothing against you or any other hunters that happen to live in Seattle, but you know you are out numbered in these types of issues. In general the whole westside is nothing but one big "Seattle" as far as voting on hunting goes.

Offline
Location: Bellevue, WA
Joined: 02/14/2008
Posts: 14
KBZ123 is right

Seattle has some conservative, pro-hunting voters, but it a haven for the anti-hunting crowd and the even worse animal-rights activists. The Seattle City Council banned circuses because circuses are cruel to animals. They spent weeks debating this issue instead of more important matters to the city. Who do you think were the voters that gave the votes for the bear-bating ban and cougar hound-hunting ban initiative to pass? Remember those bans were not passed by the legislature, but by initiative.

WDFW is made up of anti-hunters and anti-gunners. We have 20+ years of anti-sportsmen governors. Gardner, Lowry, Locke, and Gregoire are all anti-gun and anti-sportmen. Back when Spellman was governor, while he wasn't pro-sportsmen, he wasn't anti either. There were two departments when Spellman was governor, the Department of Game and the Department of Fisheries. This gave the sportsmen more rights because the DOG dealt with only sports fishing and hunting issues, while DOF dealt with anything that was fished for comercially. The only cross-over was salmon and other species that were fished commercially and fished for by sportsmen, which were under DOF jurisdiction. Steelhead, trout, spiny-rays, and all-hunting were DOG-controlled. Remember back in those days the DOG actually planted phesants. The DOG was our department and the directotrwas selected by the game commission. DOG was run by license dollaries while DOF was funded by the legislature and the federal funds. All license sales were ear-marked and went into a special fund. The game commissioners were appointed through the governor, after having open hearings on each commissioner. Sportsmen input was valued because they funded DOG. The legislature approved the appointees.

Once Spellmen was defeated in 1984, things went downhill fast. DOF and DOG were merged as a cost-savings measure and licenses sales went into the general fund (which they still do). The Director of DOFW became a gubanatorial appointee, so the commissioners and director were now all political hacks. We actually got passed an iniative to make the director selected by the commission again, but after so many years the DOFW are so full of anti-gun and anti-hunter types it doesn't matter.

The solution? We need a pro-gun governor. One who will pick pro-sportsmen game commissioners.

Related Forum Threads You Might Like

ThreadThread StarterRepliesLast Updated
Get out there and VOTE!!!awmiller711/13/2010 21:25 pm
Vote Vetspangolin1006/01/2009 07:22 am
Vote to have a wolf hunt.Hiker507/27/2009 06:58 am
Help me again please!!!doggey111012/20/2012 22:38 pm
OT. Gun Ban Poll, Cook County Illinois. VOTE Now!!lanenebraska003/18/2008 21:24 pm