Wa. House considering Game Law Changes
 

This looks like it COULD be good in some (Opportunity, revenue) ways, bad in others (???) Actually I'm surprised that they didn't figure out the money thing YEARS and YEARS ago!!!!!!!
Check out section#4

BILL REQ. #: Z-0055.1





_____________________________________________

HOUSE BILL 1211
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 59th Legislature 2005 Regular Session

By Representatives Blake, B. Sullivan, Buck, Kretz, Eickmeyer and Armstrong; by request of Department of Fish and Wildlife
Read first time 01/18/2005. Referred to Committee on Natural Resources, Ecology & Parks.




AN ACT Relating to deer and elk hunting; and amending RCW 77.32.450.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1 RCW 77.32.450 and 2000 c 109 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:
(1) A big game hunting license is required to hunt for big game. A big game license allows the holder to hunt for forest grouse, unclassified wildlife, and the individual species identified within a specific big game combination license package. Each big game license includes one transport tag for each species purchased in that package. A hunter may not purchase more than one license for each big game species except as authorized by rule of the commission. The fees for annual big game combination packages are as follows:
(a) Big game number 1: Deer, elk, bear, and cougar. The fee for this license is sixty-six dollars for residents, six hundred sixty dollars for nonresidents, and thirty-three dollars for youth.
(b) Big game number 2: Deer and elk. The fee for this license is fifty-six dollars for residents, five hundred sixty dollars for nonresidents, and twenty-eight dollars for youth.
(c) Big game number 3: Deer or elk, bear, and cougar. At the time of purchase, the holder must identify either deer or elk. The fee for this license is forty-six dollars for residents, four hundred sixty dollars for nonresidents, and twenty-three dollars for youth.
(d) Big game number 4: Deer or elk. At the time of purchase, the holder must identify either deer or elk. The fee for this license is thirty-six dollars for residents, three hundred sixty dollars for nonresidents, and eighteen dollars for youth.
(e) Big game number 5: Bear and cougar. The fee for this license is twenty dollars for residents, two hundred dollars for nonresidents, and ten dollars for youth.
(2) In the event that the commission authorizes a two animal big game limit, the fees for the second animal are as follows:
(a) Elk: The fee is twenty dollars for residents, two hundred dollars for nonresidents, and ten dollars for youth.
(b) Deer: The fee is twenty dollars for residents, two hundred dollars for nonresidents, and ten dollars for youth.
(c) Bear: The fee is ten dollars for residents, one hundred dollars for nonresidents, and five dollars for youth.
(d) Cougar: The fee is ten dollars for residents, one hundred dollars for nonresidents, and five dollars for youth.
(3) In the event that the commission authorizes a special permit hunt for goat, sheep, or moose, the permit fees are as follows:
(a) Mountain goat: The fee is one hundred dollars for residents, one thousand dollars for nonresidents, and fifty dollars for youth.
(b) Sheep: The fee is one hundred dollars for residents, one thousand dollars for nonresidents, and fifty dollars for youth.
(c) Moose: The fee is one hundred dollars for residents, one thousand dollars for nonresidents, and fifty dollars for youth.
(4) Multiple season big game permit: The commission may, by rule, offer permits for hunters to hunt deer or elk during more than one general season. Only one deer or elk may be harvested annually under a multiple season big game permit. The fee is one hundred fifty dollars for residents and one thousand five hundred dollars for nonresidents.
(5) Authorization to hunt the species set out under subsection (3)(a) through (c) of this section or in multiple seasons as set out in subsection (4) of this section is by special permit ((identified)) issued under RCW 77.32.370.
(((4))) (6) The commission may adopt rules to reduce the price of a license or eliminate the transportation tag requirements concerning bear or cougar when necessary to meet harvest objectives.


--- END ---

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I've discussed this on another forum, and the concensus was that there wasn't much in the way of changes coming down. We already pay extra for the drawing opportunity for the longer season, and the added fee if you get drawn is already there. I think this is what it is referring to for special permits. I'm not sure there is anything new, just put on the books. Anyone else know about this?

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I printed up a copy last night,and have it in front of me and it looks to me that if I wanted to buy a Eastern Wa. Modern elk tag.... this will allow me to either get a second weapon Eastern Wa elk tag, or Western Wa modern tag for an additional $150.00. Or multiple weapon deer tags,since deer tags are statewide.
Am I wrong here??

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Why would they not make it like most of the other states, that is , hunt each general season until you get your one deer and elk? This makes more sense. If it actually allows you an extra tag, than that is a whole nother thing.(good thing)

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

This mean I can hunt Bigfoot with just a Big Game license?:D

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I dont see any changes from whats happening now, and there not going to let us hunt 3 seasons for an animal. These animals would never get a break.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Talked to a guy with WDFW they are considering a multi season option but would make it special draw only I.E. 1000 tags for deer or less and you could only hunt that one species.
-Ryan

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Interesting, but we are talking about Washington here and that would only bring in $150,000.00 if they were all residents x 2 for elk would be 300K. This state is greedier than that.
Here is a little amendment on the senate side of this bill. Does anyone know where senator Hargrove is from?? I didn't see where he is from Kittitas or Chelan counties


5225-S AMS HARG S2452.3
SSB 5225 - S AMD137
By Senator Hargrove



On page 3, after line 7, insert the following:

"NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 (1) The department of fish and wildlife shall contract with Central Washington University to conduct research to determine the causes of elk damage to agricultural lands.
(2) In addition to the fees for big game licenses set forth in RCW 77.32.450, the department of fish and wildlife shall impose a surcharge of one dollar for each license authorizing the hunting of elk. Revenues from the elk hunting license surcharge must be deposited in the state wildlife fund.
(3) This section expires July 1, 2007.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 3 The sum of one hundred ninety-six thousand dollars, or as much thereof as may be necessary, is appropriated for the biennium ending June 30, 2007, from the state wildlife fund to the department of fish and wildlife for the purposes of section 2 of this act."


SSB 5225 - S AMD137
By Senator Hargrove



On page 1, line 1 of the title, after "hunting;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 77.32.450; creating a new section; making an appropriation; and providing an expiration date."

--- END ---

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

We've been saying that for years.;) But once again......we are talking about Washington here. Murray, Cantwell, Gregiore........Need I say more?

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

This state has a big hunting population compared to the size of the state. Hunting all 3 seasons wouldnt work. Youd have a slaughter, If they did i say take away muzzleloader season, montana doesnt even have a muzzleloader season, its bow or rifle. You can use a m/L but no special season.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Thats what they said they were going to do is make it only two seasons for the muliti season permit

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I sit in on the public forums for these things and we brought up the notion of eliminating the "choose your weapon" tags. Like a lot of states already have. WE even told the WDFW we'd even pay a fee to do this. The animals are already being hunted from August to Dec. This would give the Archery guy who didn't tag out the chance to pick up an M/L or Rifle or any guy the chance to use multiple weapons, and try and tag out. The fee is pretty steep if I read this right $150. So to deter some folks from doing it. We brought it up for thos of us who want every chance we have to be out there hunting, not just to tag out. I think it's great. ANd I don't think hunting pressure will be affected to much.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

That $150 wouldnt deter nobody, I think youd have every muzzle loader and archery guy that didnt tag out hunting the rifle season. So add those hunters to the people already hunting the rifle season and it makes it a little more crowded I would think. Just my .02. I just dont think a system like that would work in this state.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

It may not deter many from trying, but not very many can afford to spend as much time as we REALLY would like to out there in the field hunting. Yes weekends could get crowded, but I'd be willing to be that the critters would spook easier, sooner, and quicker than before just by the added numbers of people in thier territory
Would we rather see them abandon "Spike only"????



GO DAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Weve had the spike only talk before, spike only doesnt bother me. I like being able to have a chance at a good bull if I draw a permit.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I think the Washington Fish & Wildlife's rule and regulation problems all boil down to too much politics and too little science. And unfortunatly I don't see any changes happening there.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Seems it passed the house 96 - 0 - 2 (absent). It is now progressing in the senate.
Went through some of the other propsed bills this morning........we got some real MORONS down there!! How about a bill proposed to establish special "We love our pets" license plates?

SB 5225-S - DIGEST



(DIGEST OF PROPOSED 1ST SUBSTITUTE)



Provides that the commission may, by rule, offer permits for hunters to hunt deer or elk during more than one general season. Only one deer or elk may be harvested annually under a multiple season big game permit. The fee is one hundred fifty dollars for residents and one thousand five hundred dollars for nonresidents. All revenue derived from the sale of multiple season big game permits must be deposited in a separate account within the state wildlife fund and must be used only for big game management.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

See my opinion differs from two points, if you shoot all the young ones, and at the same time raffle to kill some olders, add in age and other mortality factors you soon have no Elk, and I also like the chance at a nice bull, but I don't "Gamble" whether i have the " RIGHT" to hunt that year.....my 2 cents

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I'll throw in my .02 on this. If this goes through, in 6 years we will be on a Draw Only system. There is NO WAY you can put that many people(and there will be that many people) in the woods from Sep to Dec and let them hunt until they tag out, and not negatively affect herds. How are you going to funnel pressure off certain areas? If you start restricting GMUs, you'll only overload another area. They will get as much revenue as they can, scrap it when the new game management plan comes out in 6 years, and say "Hey, we need a Permit Only setup. There are too many hunters in the woods, and the herd numbers are suffering." It's coming! Might as well grease up now.[:@]

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I gotta go with trapper T on this one. I saw many spikes last year that sure seemed they could be f..ed up due to inner-breeding which would be cause for argument to AT LEAST expand the number of any bull tags given out,if not just go to any bull ..period.
As I said before, not every hunter can afford to spend all the time they would like to in the field, and I don't see the problem there. Add the $3 a gallon fuel by then.
One question though....... does anyone know the reason why "spike only" works best here, and 3 point or better works best there??

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Good call Ryan.... It IS just another Special permit choice ( Which I for one would NOT apply for, after 7 years applying for that big bull tag). You will find that stated about 2/3 the way down.
Also, looks like it passed senate 48-1-0


SENATE BILL REPORT
HB 1211



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


As Reported By Senate Committee On:
Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation, March 28, 2005
Ways & Means, April 1, 2005

Title: An act relating to deer and elk hunting.

Brief Description: Concerning a multiple season big game permit.

Sponsors: Representatives Blake, B. Sullivan, Buck, Kretz, Eickmeyer and Armstrong; by request of Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Brief History: Passed House: 3/09/05, 96-0.

Committee Activity: Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation: 3/21/05, 3/28/05 [DP-WM, DNP].

Ways & Means: 3/31/05, 4/1/05 [DP].



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, OCEAN & RECREATION

Majority Report: Do pass and be referred to Committee on Ways & Means.Signed by Senators Jacobsen, Chair; Doumit, Vice Chair; Oke, Ranking Minority Member; Spanel and Swecker.

Minority Report: Do not pass.Signed by Senator Morton.

Staff: Curt Gavigan (786-7437)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SENATE COMMITTEE ON WAYS & MEANS

Majority Report: Do pass.Signed by Senators Prentice, Chair; Doumit, Vice Chair; Fraser, Vice Chair; Zarelli, Ranking Minority Member; Hewitt, Kohl-Welles, Parlette, Pflug, Pridemore, Rasmussen, Regala, Rockefeller, Schoesler and Thibaudeau.

Staff: Kirstan Arestad (786-7708)

Background: A big game license is required to hunt for big game, such as deer, elk, bear, and cougar. Several different big game combination packages are available. Each license package authorizes the hunting of specific species. The fee for a big game license depends on the combination package selected. Each big game license includes one transport tag for the species listed in the package chosen.

Annual big game combination, package four, allows the holder, at the time the permit is purchased, to choose to hunt either elk or deer. The fee for this license is thirty-six dollars for residents, three hundred sixty dollars for nonresidents, and eighteen dollars for youth.

Summary of Bill: The Department of Fish and Wildlife may, by rule, offer permits to hunt deer or elk during more than one general season under a multiple season big game permit. Only one deer or elk may be harvested annually under such permits. The fee for a multiple season big game permit is one hundred fifty dollars for residents and one thousand five hundred dollars for nonresidents.

A multiple season big game permit is considered a special permit, requiring payment of an application fee of five dollars for residents, fifty dollars for nonresidents, and three dollars for youth to enter a drawing for the chance to purchase a permit.

Appropriation: None.

Fiscal Note: Available.

Committee/Commission/Task Force Created: No.

Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For (Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation): Multiple season big game permits would increase the recreational hunting opportunities available to hunters. The sale of these permits would also provide revenues to the wildlife fund. Hunting with a variety of different weapons would be valuable to disabled hunters. Additionally, acquisition of a multiple season big game permit would be one of many hunting options and would not be mandatory.

Testimony Against (Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation): None.

Who Testified (Natural Resources, Ocean & Recreation): PRO: Albert Vinetal, Persons with Disabilities; Dave Ware, Department of Fish and Wildlife; Ed Owens, Hunters Heritage Council.

Testimony For (Ways & Means): The multiple season big game permit will create more opportunities and generate more revenue for the department.

Testimony Against (Ways & Means): None.

Who Testified (Ways & Means): PRO: Representative Blake, prime sponsor.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

One question though....... does anyone know the reason why "spike only" works best here, and 3 point or better works best there??



Well the state when they instituted this plan they actually had the entire state as Spike only. A Gov't Watchdog group out of Vancouver put the halt on that and forced the state to give three point or better on the Westside. THe State can only give out "Junk science" as why spike only is better. IF you look at the three summer issues of Wa- Or. fish and game magazine, there are usually three stories every year. 1 is a peice put out by the WDFW on how great the Blue MT. are for Elk, due to the amount of Big Bull tags, the second is a story from an independent soucre telling you how screwed up the blues actually are in WA, yet in Or. the Blues are doing fairly well(ORegon has a limited entry). And the Third is a story put out by the WDFW on how the Okanogan Mulies are thriving due in part to the" Three point" rule up there. Tell me this, when it comes to antler restricitions aren't Elk and deer the same?????? Then why does it work for one yet not the other? The state wnats spike only for ONE reason....MONEY....like SLee said the state wants permit only hunting, I've heard with my own years Dave Ware(WDFW) say this, but he knows the public won't go for it. SO what they are doing is making the east side and all the decent areas left a permit only area just to get thier numbers up, then with faulty management practice they screw it up so bad that in the 6 years they'll come back to us saying that permit only is the only way to fix this, then turn around and show that with the amount of permits we(Public) are already putting in for, the numbers back the idea that we should go for it, because we already do. I have NOT put in for any permit in about ten years, I refuse to do so just so I DO NOT help them get the data they need, so when they try this scam we as a public are not going to be able to refuse them because they have alreay baitied us into their scheme[:@]
I also told Dave Ware my stance on this and I've stated it here in the past....I will NOT gamble my RIGHT to hunt and if this state goes to "Permit Only" I will still hunt ethically and with a limit, but the one I have to answer to as far as ethics are concerned is not in Gov't and cares more about how I hunt and the respect I give to His creations then the money I spend to a phony outfit.

my 2 cents. Summit the only reason for the spike only,is a gimmic to help them acheive their blessed permit only cash cow.....period. Anyone that has an animal husbandry background will tell you you need to change your breed stock every few years to ensure good lines. You don't keep the same bull breeding the same cows year in and year out. You'll screw up the genetics.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I agree with Trapper. Our state has money as it's number one priority. Seems they (WA) don't care too much about the elk herds.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Thanks trapper, good post! Being that this is Washington we are talking about here, I would be surprised to see anyone (outside gooberment) disagree. As for screwed up genetics, in 5 days (couldn't get away any more) of Colockum M/R last year, I saw 3 examples of it.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I live here in Okanogan county ( Methow Valley) and I know since they have put the 3 point rule into effect I see alot more bigger bucks.
Now as far as the good science rule trust me in this state it's a myth alot of times. Seems alot of politics and special interest groups, ( the tribes for one) play a big part in how seasons are set and what gets protected. Alot of the money in the Depts budget goes to nonconsumptive wildlife species. This is a result of the dept changing from the Game Dept to the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Lets face it hunters and fishermen are not that important as far as Olympia is conserned.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

That is unless we smoke, drink, or need fuel to get whever we go...... Then they're trying to get thier filthy mitts on as much of our $$$$$$$ as they possibly can. I see now where they burned a bunch of it to make M.L. King the official namesake of king county. They said that the Vice President who it was actually named after owned slaves and it was inappropriate to leave it alone. I guess now K/C was named in 1889 for a guy who wasn't even born yet! And of course the selected "Wench" signed it.
Say bye bye to I-601 also. Look out all, the California emissions standards bill is about to be crammed down our throats too, to add thousands to the price of new vehicles. Come on Chelan county-Get her out of there!!!

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

You got it right Summit, also I heard that the first step in getting a state income tax is in the works now to. Makes me wonder if alot of those people in Olympia have stock in KY jelly company. With the stuff coming in the future we're going to need it.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Commies every last one of them, the new gas tax should be a great example of how the Democrats and alot of our so -called republicans DO NOT listen to the people. How many time have we voted it down yet they still raised it, saying it took courage to vote that in. NO stupidity, courage would've been to cut the waste and use the money right....I know we're off topic but I just got done reading the draft for the turkey management plan, and sure enough the Boobermint wants to get their hand into more of the workings of our birds.TUrkeys are doing well right now no thanks to the WDFW, but the NWTF and folks like you and I who've put in time and money to help them grow. All we need now is the WDFW to take over and turn turkeys into the same thing they've done with Deer,Elk, Salmon and Steelhead......what a shame[:@]

With that being said, in order for us to continue to expand our flocks we do need this plan,and the State is taking public input , and I feel we need to male sure that they don't take total control over it, they need to work with us(NWTF) to ensure we keep doing things right. As long as that happens will be alright, but I think the WDFW wants a Dictatorship on this one and that scares me.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

I read it the other day, did not like what I saw and told them that. From what I can tell if our flocks in my area go down for nay reason they are not going to do anything. Big problem here is alot of these goody two shoers feed the birds then when the birds make a mess on there fancy cars they scream like the wind. The dept. comes in and traps them and takes them out of our area. People need to stop doing that, plus alot of them feed them out there with their chickens and thats not good for the birds.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Where I hunt in East. WA., the Game Dept. usually comes in every year, traps them, and takes them to places like Okanogan County. That same flock that has been trapped at least the past two years is totaling somewheree near 280 in the winter. But if the GD keeps trapping them in huge quantities they'll end up messing up like they did over here in the westside. There used to be larger flocks of 25 to 60 until the WDFW came in, trapped them, and tried to disperse them before they could take a solid hold. Turkeys are few a far between now. I think they should get s'more Easterns for the westside and shut down the season for several years after planting them. God knows that won't happen because you won't have people buying 3 tags trying to the WA. Slam. And we all know the people up in O-Town love their money.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Over where I've been deer hunting in northern Stevens county the turkey and deer feeding greenies (along with thier NO hunting signs) are a pain in the ........! There is one field just over the Barstow bridge from highway 395 where there has been upwards (4x8 plywood no hunting sign in field) of 20 deer and at least a hundred turkeys every time over there. Now I don't know that they're being fed, but they sure have a fine sanctuary there. I DO know that we have paid to move many of those birds.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

As far as trapping birds on the east side, I don't think you can trap too heavy and screw up an area. If it's a good spot, the next year or two it will be loaded with birds again. They come there for a reason. It may take several years, but they will return. Unfortunately, it is usually because the landowner is feeding them. I am all for bird populations expanding, but I think it should occur naturally. Take away the food supplementation and the bird numbers will go down or at least stabilize. Instead you get people feeding chopped corn and alfalfa to the birds to get them through winter. Then they gripe and complain that they make a mess and become a nuisance. No $#!+. If they get too bad, they want the WDFW to remove them. What should be done is the landowner should HAVE to allow hunters on their place to control the birds before the state foots the bill for a transplant.

I'm not sure this state can ever hold a stable number of Easterns on the west side. Between fungus, predators, and poaching, the birds just aren't doing as well as they'd hoped. And it is almost impossible to know accurate numbers due to the vegetation and terrain. Last I heard, they(WDFW) weren't interested in transplanting any more birds right now on the west side. Has anyone heard different?

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

Last I heard is they won't even consider releasing more easterns on the west side until they have some idea of how they are actually doing. They haven't a clue as to the number of birds, where they are, or anything like that. I remember Dan saying those on the westside should take notes on birds they see through out the year, # of hens, # of toms, when and where just to get a rough idea as to what we actually have.

If you think about it, the birds on the east side had 30 years w/out hunting pressure to take hold. We transplanted 300 easterns in 96ish up and down the I-5 corridor (which we just paid off not too recently) and that has been it. Considering there was no ban of any sort for hunting them, I don't think they are doing too bad.

If you want more easterns, start relaying your information and try to get some sort of handle on how well they are doing. I don't know why WDFW has a gripe about releasing more, NWTF paid for those birds and they held our hands as we released them.

FYI I think it cost about 300 a bird to trap them in the midwest, transport, and release - that's a big bill to have - thanks all you NWTF members for your work, time and donations.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Changes
 

I know a few yrs ago they brought in some birds to my area from Stevens county but from what I was told lately they will not be bringing in any more. They had planned to bring in a set number but were shut down by Olympia. The birds we did get are it, they have no plans to move anymore in and it seems that when a land owner complains they take them out and move them to another county. I agree if a land owner is having problems then they should let a few hunters in to re-educate the birds about hanging around peoples places. But thats only if the land owner knocks off the feeding.
Also I was told that the Forest Service will not allow any birds to be released on their lands. That might be part of the problem on the westside of the state. Like anything the state wants our money but they wont put much effort into any that has to do with hunting or building more hunting opportunities for us.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

$90,000?!?! Dang, NWTF did spend a lot.. Then season was opened right after releasing them so most could be killed and now there is barely any left. Not smart... Isn't at least some of the money we use to pay for tags supposed to go to Wash. Wildlife Management? Where does that money go anyways? Don't Biologists get paid to do something like maybe, oh I dunno, check on turkey populations? I'm pretty sure someone under someone job title is has them checking wildlife populations. Me, personally, am just a citizen. It's not my job. If I'm paid to report turkey populations on the west side, I gladly will but until then I'll just have to keep killing them on the other side of the state. You would think they'd get a pretty good idea of how they're doing when in 2004, 80 birds were killed on the westside compared to 5716 killed on the eastside. We started doing hunter reports these past few season for a reason, right? It's just common sense to me. The WDFW should step things up a knotch. I have seriously thought long a hard whether to major in Computer Science or Wild Management/Biology. If I ever decide to take the latter of the two, I won't be getting a job in this state. It's way to crooked for my blood.

PacNW: I agree. That states wants our money badly. All they have to do is ask landowners to allow them to plant turkeys on their land. I'm sure some around where I live will let them. Take my family for example. We own 1200 acres that I'm sure we will let the WDFW plant turkeys.

RE: Wa. House considering Game Law Change
 

As for the plan they're trying to implement, the WDFW states they will no longer trap or transfer birds, they will not open any new areas for birds, they seem to want to go on this" IF they live , they live" action of no interference[:@] We held a meeting the other night with the State NWTF president and He is going to give them some ideas we had about all of this.

1) On people who feed them then claim damage on them, they will not get any funding for said damage. IF we hit these folks in their wallet maybe they'll quit feeding them then coimplaining about them.

2) Let trap and transfer continue for problem birds, and the NWTF will at least help fund the moves if not totally.

3) Make sure an use the NWTF as a greater tool in helping bare the burden of money and man power in dealing with the turkeys.

We have a lot of volunteers, like myself who got into the NWTF to help expand these birds.

Also by what I've read of the plan, remember we're fairly new to turkeys out here and so is the WDFW, they're learning about them biologically the smae way many of us learned to hunt them...by reading East coast Philosophy.....but I think they need to watch these birds and to see how they'll adapt to WA. They tell me that they will not do anything to help the Central WA flocks anymore, they don't think they'll make it.....well the last three years I've hunted up there I run into more and more every year and in different areas than previously seen. PLus witht the reports for Western WA, someday Merriam's will be in WEstern WA, one a guy up in Squiem, has planted a couple hundred up there and two, the Central and North Central flocks have crested the Cascades and are moving West. I personally think the turkeys in general are doing good and with new flocks growing and adpating I think they'll be alright. But Let the state know how you feel, right now they're taking public input to draft this plan, let's not let them screw this up the way they did every other game animal in this state.