I must comment on the statement that too many poachers get off and the game wardens word should be good enough.
When I was 17 yrs. old and fishing a "meat hole" part of the Lewis river, the spot had so many salmon in it that I constantly had bumps on my line. Having little experience at salmon fishing, I tried to set the hook whenever I "got a bite". Next thing I know some overzealous game warden was chewing me out and writing me a ticket for snagging. I was so humiliated, and although using normal "legal" gear, I was convicted and fined based on his testamony. I tried to explain to the judge, but had to admit to "jerking my rod several times in a few minutes". That kind of action was what made me a snagger according to the game warden. It was not the truth. I spent the rest of the season never catching a fish cause I was never sure if I was getting a bite or not.
They are not always right, and some are just downright nasty and ticket happy. Common sense should rule, but never does in this country.

MC

Ahhh Cowlitz,

So many insults, so little time...

Attack mode? What the hell do you think you just did to Rob Allen? Nevermind I'll forgo the typical Cowlitz justification.

I'd be glad to be the Phil Donahue of the board: "Is the caller there?"

Seein's how I don't know $hit, I guess it's a damn good thing we got you.

Back on topic - No, IMO we don't have enough enforcement. I wouldn't mind at all being checked every time out.

Hey 4Salt,

How does it feel to be every ones "big brother"?

To bad you're not Bob's #1Moderator, because if you were, you could really play the "roll"!

You misread what I said! I didn't mean that you didn't know Jack $hit about everything! I am sorry that you took it that way, I just meant that you didn't know Jack $hit about the Cowlitz!

Sorry for the misunderstanding, please except my humble apology.

Some guys are just natural


Cowlitzfisherman

JK!

A humble Cowfish? hmmmmmmmm............................?

Naw... that doesn"t compute!






herm

I think theres plenty of enforcement and to many rules!

I believe that there are 165 game wardens in the state. Out of about 100 days fishing last season I saw one warden and never got checked once. Emforcement is naive and thickheaded by nature but I believe it to be a necessary evil that needs to be increased in many areas.
But we can also call and report what spots need more patroling. When the warden remembers your name, he will be more likely to excuse something minor that you honestly overlooked.

If what chappy says is true about the number of full time game wardens (and I have no reason to believe that he is not correct), why could any fishermen expect to see a game warden when the average licensed fishermen only fishes the majority of time during the weekends?

Think about that for just a few moments! Do you really think that YOU are going to see one of those wardens on the 1 or 2 days that you are out fishing at your most favorite "secret" fishing spot that you never tell anyone else about? Like I said earlier, they are there in most commonly fished-poached areas where most of the poaching occurs, and they are watching you but you just know it! Many of the same game wardens are working at night trying to catch the real poachers and you are not going to ever see them unless you are one of those poachers! Why does everyone always think that all these illegal activities are occurring during the day light hours.

It's really no different then any other crime; most are done at night time under the cover of darkness!


Cowlitzfisherman

keeping the honest, honest.

No need spending resources in the pursuit of honest people.

I wouldn't mind being checked every day .

I would. I'm not checked every time I get in a car to go for a drive. An illegal,irresponsible driver is a greater danger to people than a poacher.

It's all a matter of where to place available resources. There is enough law enforcement out there, even if we don't see them. With proper management and procedure,the existing laws and staffing can be effective.

So I am casually scanning this thread and voting with the majority that we don't have enough enforcement and what do I see? Another slam from 4Salt! What a surprise. The Phil Donohue of PP? He got cancelled you know. Both of his viewers quit watching his socialist soap box show on MSNBC. I do believe that most people on here (you included) usually entwine their political slant in their opinions about almost anything. This thread is a good example. Demonize, belittle and ridicule. Those are the bywords here.

Being a conservative , in my book, is not evil nor is being a liberal. Those are only generalizations to try to indentify a political philosophy. When someone argues that those who pay no taxes deserve the lion's share of the tax cut or , for that matter, any tax cut at all, I would classify them as a liberal or socialist. When someone like myself gladly accepts the tax cut as a sound economic policy I am labelled a right wing conservative. Hey that's ok with me. I don't apologize for being in that group that pays 70% of the income taxes in this country. I'll take the money. I earned it. I believe that personal initiative and hard work are good and freeloading off the government (taxpayers) is for losers or the mentally ill. I believe in capitalism and private property. OOOOOOOOO I must be a villian.

Now back to the real issue in this thread: We don't have enough enforcement and it is getting worse. That is one of the reasons I opposed the WT lawsuit so much. It took funds away from WDFW budget that could have gone to more officers instead of personnel being laid off. The $58,000 paid to WT was only part of the real cost to the dept.

Some additional food for thought-

Someone (sorry, forgot who) mentioned that there are about 175 wildlife officers statewide. From what I remember that is probably in the ball park, but realize that many of those aren't field staff. The actual number of those working the field is probably closer to 120 give or take a few. Now factor in off duty time, and there's probably fewer than 40 officers working in the field at a given time. That's not a lot of officers for a state the size of washington.

The other important issue to note is that there seems to be a trend where fish and wildlife officers are getting caught up in enforcing non-fish and wildlife offenses. It's not unusual for an officer to check someone fishing and have to transport them to the county jail for multiple warrants involving drugs or other offenses. It's also not unusual for a fish and wildlife officer to back up a county officer on a domestic or other serious call. I think this trend will likely continue as more law enforcement agencies become strapped for cash and officers. Right or wrong, I doubt it's going to change. If you were to decide if a fish and wildlife officer responds to a possible poaching in progress or assisting a deputy with a meth lab bust, which would you choose? This is also the reason I'd hate to see washington's fish and wildlife officers become part of WSP.

My personal feeling is that we'd have to double the number of fish and wildlife officers to make an actual difference.

i get checked several times a week fishing in the sound during summer and fall...not so much on rivers...but i guess at least once a month in the winter....i suspect it has to do with 'profiling'...i remeber a warden in the olympia area saying he always checks 'foriegn' lookin' people when he gets a chance...guess that's me...

i get checked several times a week fishing in the sound during summer and fall...not so much on rivers...but i guess at least once a month in the winter....i suspect it has to do with 'profiling'...i remeber a warden in the olympia area saying he always checks 'foriegn' lookin' people when he gets a chance...guess that's me...i've even had the coast guard check me in the sound last year....

I am suprised no one had a comment about "deputizing" volunteers. Also, I unaware of any of our outdoor clubs pursuing the idea of pressing for more enforcement. I don't see an increase of officers with the budget constraints as is, so it makes sense to deputize... One problem I worry about with deputizing is the vigilante approach from certain individuals. The program deserves a look.

I think we need to start folks at an early age learning respect for the outdoors... Many of our outdoor clubs are fairly proactive when it comes to kids and/or families... I would also be in favor of an outdoor education class taught prior to recieving a license. This serves a two-fold purpose: (1) awareness, and (2) it leaves no excuses...

We need more enforcement and the penalties for poaching need to be stiff enough to be a catalyst for others to follow. Frankly, who could afford $500 for not pinching a barb?

Downriggin

I think the biggest problem with deputizing people is; you just can't say; you are now a cop, deputy, officer, or game warden! It takes a lot of expensive training, and time to make another person aware of each other person's rights.

And once you have trained that person, he is in all sense a state employee and is usally entitled to state benefits.....and so-on, and so-on!

Well, that's the way that I see it anyway! I may be wrong, but not likely. Good idea, but I think that those days are gone. But then again, I could be wrong.....but then again....not likely!


Cowqlitzfisherman

I have to agree with cowlitzfisherman that I don't think deputizing individuals is a good idea. The liability for WDFW would just be too great and would only expose WDFW to more legal actions. Being an officer is a full time job that goes beyond an eight or ten hour work day. Most officers live and breath it just to stay current on state law and responsibilities. Not to mention that most volunteers can't afford to spend more than a few weekends a month on volunteer activities. I'm sure if we had deputized individuals enforcing fish and wildlife laws we'd see a lot more stories about the blankety blank fish cops on the PP.