Game Commission


New member
I think the Game Commission has lost touch with the average hunter. They don't listen to our input, they don't even listen to the Dept. They are catering to the big clubs and groups. I would suggest we contact our Senators and Congressmen on the state level and get them abolished we as Sportsman were better off under the WDFW. They at least did some of things we wanted. What are your feelings on this?......Bob
I think they have already decided issues when they invite public input.I would like to go back to when it was The Dept Of Game and the Fisheries Dept.My father retired from the Navy and the Game Dept. I think the organization has gotton way to big...I don't think I have seen a wildlife officer in the feild while fishing or hunting in 12 years and I give them plenty of opportunity as I hunt 70 to 80 days a season and fish probrably as many. Heres one of my dogs Hunter pointing a pheasant hiding in an old duck blind View attachment 717
Nice picture, I wonder how to you get in and out of cover that think. Did you get a shot at the bird?.......Bob
Yes, we got it, the blind was set up on the edge of a cut corn feild I actully had time to take this picture put away my camera then give the flush command to my flushing britt Max while Hunter held point ,it was a really close shot that I couldn't even mess up,Hunter picked it up out of the middle of the feild.I didn't have to get into the thick stuff at all.Its so funny to watch my dogs run retrieves together they have even passed the birds to each other mid retreive...weird...
Good that was interesting........Bob
Don't get rid of the commission

I will agree that the comission doesn't prioritize wildlife issues, they're very fish-centric, but this is because WDFW is staffed and funded by 80% fish program. I'll also agree that WDFW is too large. Their field staff continues to be reduced (agents and biologists) while middle managers and computer anylists seem to increase exponentially.
But this is the first qualified commission in decades. Lawyers and ranchers have been replaced with current and former deans of natural resource programs and a former head of the old dept of game. Most of their background and focus is on fisheries, but that's the nature of the beast, and will never change as long as there are billions of dollars being spent on threatend and endangerd fish and millions more are contributed to the enormous hatchery program.
The alternative to the commision scares the hell out of me. They provide much more insulation from the legislature than having the director be appointed by the legislature and having the ultimate say (at the whim of our state represenatives). I won't even go into all the mistakes that have already happened due to strong handed pressure from individual represenatives, but you can imagine if you follow the mis-steps of our state government. It would also put more power in the director's hands, which if you are familiar with the former director, would also scare the hell out of me.
No matter what, fisheries will run the game. If you are frustrated start or continue writing the commission. They don't get paid, and have a pretty damn hard job. I also disagree with much of the wildlife management decisions, but they're the best option that we have. Please don't lobby to eliminate them (the legislature tried to do that last year, and luckily it just missed making it out of committee to reach a vote).
I quit hunting & fishing WA entirely when I travel in the Lower 48 because of the department's lack of interest in hunting and fishing other than salmon. The salmon hatchery program is almost all tribal now with a few state hatcheries here and there. There has been no interest in keeping the alpine lake program viable, there is little to no interest in looking at eastern Washington's trout programs that can flourish if there was interest to do so.

Hunting is another bag of worms with tribal claims now off the reservation in what they call there ancestral hunting grounds. I used to love stopping in eastern WA to hunt pheasant, quail and jump shooting ducks with friends that live there. Now all I do is drive through and visit or just enter the state above Colville and continue to I-90 on my way to Montana or ND.

It is a sad state of affairs from what I remember in the early 1970s. (before the English judge Boldt decision)

After I posted this I was thinking with I was doing some chores about other "things" that have affected the fish and game in Washington State.
I feel as if I wrongly put blame on the American Indian with my first few sentences. Every "group" wants to point a finger except at themselves. Logging, real estate development, agriculture, aqua culture(I'm talking the clam and oyster farmers in Puget Sound), home ownership and beautiful green lawns with fantastic flower gardens and shrubs, over population of the Olympia to Bellingham corridor. All these groups are not without blame but it is the way we do things in America. We need wood for homes, we need land to put stores and homes on, we need food from land farmers, we like to eat clams and oysters so there is a growing farming area in the Sound, most Americans like lawns, flowers, shrubs and gardens which take fertilizer etc..

There really is no one group to blame for loss of habitat, but I do believe IF the WDFG did do more FIELD RESEARCH and less labs and theory the upland birds would benefit. If they benefit then ungulates will benefit, and the circle of life can go on. Every trout to every elk and moose would benefit from something positive but the department has not seen the light to work with the entire ecosystem for the benefit of all.
Last edited:
It seems states like SD were able to figure it out. I wonder how much money SD pulls in from out of state hunters every year? I had to drive over to Pullman last spring and it still seems there is lots empty land. Can't we figure out a way for it to support a wild bird population?