While I certainly enjoy consumptive use I think it is high time that WDFW (and other agencies) integrated non-consumptive and consumptive uses.

It was the duck hunters who pushed for the refuges and access areas that preserved habitat for all sorts of wetland species. Maintaining the habitat benefits all species.

If there gets to be a huge push to chase out the hook and bullet crowd who will pay, for example, the feeding of elk?

I have no quarrel with investing in non-game management. However, I thought that was already occurring. In the 1980s, the WA Legislature authorized vanity license plates, with the proceeds going to the then new non-game species management section created at WDG. I read that it was an unbelievable success. Staff at WDG/WDW reported that non-game suddenly became the best and most stable funded section of fish and wildlife management in the state.

Subsequently the Legislature authorized vanity license plates for other purposes as well, with that funding earmarked for those particular purposes. What I don't know is whether that diluted the non-game funding. Has non-game funding declined over the last 30 years? I've read nor heard nothing one way or the other. The article makes it sound like non-game funding is starting from zero.

As for non-consumptive uses, yes, non-game should be incorporated with game fish and wildlife management. Throwing the traditional hook and bullet fraternity under the bus is the Department's management trend that I disagree with, mainly because of the disingenuous way the Department goes about it.

As for transforming the management purpose of the agency, that's a whole 'nuther question. Change won't come easy to the Washington Department of Salmon, a designated "food" fish, lest we forget what this is all about.

My experience is that the Agency will throw whomever screams the loudest under the bus. Need more money? Suggest that hatcheries, especially those if the districts of powerful legislators, get closed. The money gets added and the "desirable" projects stay funded.

One year, though, I recall the Leg wised up. The hatchery budget was line item, which meant it could only be spent there.

It has been a decade or so but as I recall the vanity plates brought in more money that the agency wanted spend on non-game. Wonder how that bullet hole in foot has healed.

No surprise, and what do we expect when we vote for, and empower activists that not only allow this to happen, but promote the demise of hunting, fishing in this state. We all watched as opportunity dwindled to a trickle at best, and we continued to leave them the power to bring this on regardless of our desire, intent, or the money spent funding them to roll down this path.

Keep those congrats coming, as that’s what we let happen.
Let’s see now, how does clam digging for rec consumption fit in here ?

Aldo Leupold rolls in his grave...

This quote says it all.

"Do we kill cougars because they're killing elk that hunters want to hunt?

This quote says it all. All the "Hook and Bullet" analysis going on, is nothing but discussions on reducing or eliminating harvest. Understandable, because look where harvest management has got us. I wonder how the Tribes feel about this? It doesn't matter what we want to do if the tribes don't. They have already taken over fisheries management and I see them taking over fish hatcheries at some point. I doubt REWILDING EARTH will fit into there harvest models or help there economies.

Ahh, but some of the tribal community do embrace wildlife management. If the bears are too numerous, and eat too many elk calves, or consume too many deer fawns, and wreak havoc within certain areas of tribal concern -

They open it up to hunting as a proper management tool to keep most of the wildlife within their purview in a healthy balance.

They even bait hunt their bears ensure the correct number of bears are kept in check.

It just costs you non tribal hunters money to help them manage the population if you choose to pay the pipers..

With Treaty Rights it really won't matter a lot, with big game, as too what the Commission does. The Tribes will fill the vacuum. I know that in AK subsistence hunting and egging for waterfowl is a big deal but I don't know about down here.

They used to egg cormorants, which is why there were so few colonies in Puget Sound until they quit.

There was an article in the Seattle Times about Tribal hunting on Yellowstone bison when the move into Montana in the winter. Makes for some interesting comments from "conservation" NGOs.

Presumably the state funds will be tax $. Therefore we should get subsidized fishing/hunting licenses so as not to be paying "our share" twice... right?

As I recall, way back in the day when WDF was funded by the GF there were no licenses just punch cards. This was a long time ago.

That is correct C'man. No license required for "food fish" species, and salmon punch cards were free. And coho returns to Grays Harbor ranged between 200,000 and 300,000 annually. Coho returns to PS were well over one million.

Yeah, I remember those million SS coho runs. Add to that 100K Chinook in Bellingham Bay along with 200K+ coho up there. Those were rather well sustained by hatchery production.

Something about the loudest and most organized being heard rings true as I read about this week of action up in King (Inslee) County next week:

https://wawildlifefirst.org/event/howling-for-change-a-week-of-wildlife-action/

And we wonder why our hunting and fishing is going away.

Yikes! So I'm curious to know how this group would like to manage wildlife. No hunting? No control? Should we allow wolves, cougars, and bears to reach the maximum populations sizes that WA's highly modified ecosystem can support?

I think WDFW actually does a decent job of "threading the needle" on wolf management. Some ranchers and hunters would like zero wolves, and some delusional wildlife advocates like this group appears to be would like unlimited wolves. The prey search image of wolves is typically ungulates like deer and elk, and some times bison, moose, or carabou, they are adaptable to a lot more than just farm livestock. If wolves were to reach ecosystem population numbers, they would prey upon dogs and cats and pretty much every animal they could catch. I bet the popular support for wolf recovery would fizzle out rapidly if small children couldn't wait outside by the road for the school bus if wolves became numerous and hungry.

Kinda' the same with cougars. Cougar attacks on humans were basically unheard of for nearly 100 years. Now it's become only slightly surprising when it happens. Unlimited human populations growth and unlimited predator population growth can only lead to some very interesting predator - prey stories.

In my opinion, good conservation management only pleases those who understand ecology. Everyone else will be disappointed.

It makes you wonder if those groups really think through the ramifications of there agenda's? Just like SG said. Hell doesn't break lose until a kid is dragged off at the bus stop by a hungry cougar. Those dissappointed non ecologists will be pointing fingers right quick. Also, at that point wildlife management becomes reactionary.

Wolves are the pinnipeds of the woods.

While I was working we once had a discussion about who we worked for. It was a staff meeting, after dinner, and libations were served. All sorts of answers and most of them were pretty justifiable.

One guy worked for folks who yelled the loudest at meetings. The part I found interesting was out of about 20+ only two actually claimed to work for the resource/ecosystem. What made that most interesting is both were alumni of WDG who, because the agency was supported only by license funds at the time, was very "sensitive" to consumptive desires. It was a very interesting evening.

When I worked as AAG representing the WDFW, we referred to it as the "Washington Department of Fishing and Hunting", and I don't think we meant it as a compliment.

Fish on...

Todd

That's probably pretty true. At the same time, they have to sell licenses.

I don't object at all to the inclusion of non-game species under the wildlife agency's umbrella. It's appropriate and needed. What's not so clear is the management objective since WDFW's enabling legislation is aimed primarily at managing fish and wildlife for harvest. (Harvest is co-equal to species preservation as written in the legislation.) That's why, with little more than species perpetuation as the legislative guideline, I think the Department did amazingly well with the wolf management plan.

As WA's human population continues to grow, the % of the population that hunts and or fishes decreases. So whose interest(s) is WDFW supposed to be responsive to? Since idiots are allowed to vote, does this mean that uninformed and misinformed opinions should carry the same weight as informed and professional opinions? Yikes, if that's the case.