Future of Washington Hunting Season's

[smdave]

We as hunters and outdoorsman no matter if you are from the East or the West are the minorities. Our state has a problem that the most dense population is in Seattle Bellevue King county. These voters most do not hunt or use the great outdoor areas like we do but, they vote to save the animals and the land from us that do.

It will be an uphill battle and we really need to do our part get out and vote, vote for people that have our interests. Talk to others about hunting and guns. The dense population in the big cities think guns kill and hunting is bad. If you live in Seattle I do not mean you I am talking about 80% of your neighbors. I live on the wetside.

Dave

[Dman]

 

If you can come up with a good reason why not...Somebody tell me why a city full of people, most raised with one idea in thier heads, should have voting power over those of us living over here?
 

For myself, I'll say again, I feel strongly that we are talking about HUNTERS ONLY, not the non hunting population on the West side. The fact is the majority of the hunting license buying population resides on the West side and that money DIRECTLY pays for the public lands we hunt in the East side also. It makes no sense from that standpoint and from the standpoint of keeping hunting going in Washington at all to divide the State. I think that's more of a statement of frustration then logic. Personally, on a per capita basis, I cannot see why it's an issue for West sider's to hunt the East side, it's huge country, easily enough for everyone to hunt. My original statement was about how the game department manages the season's already in place and what options as far as season's would be good to look at, dividing the State is not really the same topic, that is a legislative issue and would include a hell of a lot more than just hunting.

[littletoes]

But "what if" Hunters were only allowed to vote on Hunting issues? Wouldn't that be great...To Vote on a Hunting Issue, you must first own a Hunting License, and have a current Wild ID No.

But then for me, how would this change the Vote? Would Westsiders vote fore or against hounds? For or Against Traps? Quite a bit of our reasoning comes from how we are raised. Do you understand my implications?

Perhaps we are differant?
Those negative votes, which were differing forms of hunting, came from somewhere.

[Bigshooter]

Getting rid of the points system is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.  Points give the guy who has been apply for ten years a better chance to draw than the guy that is apply for the first time.  And in this example the guy who has ten points has 100 chance in the system to draw.  The second guy only has only one chance.  But they both have a chance.  Going to a draw that everybody has no points like some have mentioned, is not going to make people stop applying if anything it is going to make more people apply.  It cost about $6 to apply if I have no points with the current system and I want a desert A tag  I have very little chance of drawing so I probablly won't apply for that tag and try to draw a tag that has better draw odds.  But if everybody has no points I have the same chance as everybody else as drawing that desert A tag for a cheap $6. 

   You want better odds so you so called diehard hunters can have better odds.  There are four things that need to be done.  1.)Get the game department to manage every unit for an older age class of deer. 2.)Get the game department to allot a percent of the tags to nonresident. (right now its possible for nonresidentsto draw every tag for any given unit.)   3.)Get the game department to allow us to have only one or two choices to put in for the draw instead of four.  And 4.)Raise the price for a permit application to around $25.

   If these four things happend we wouldn't have 5500 people apply for the desert tag.

[littletoes]

Raising the price will only make it a Sport for those that can afford the higher prices. Not fair to the poor.
Is that ethical?

[Curly]

Bigshooter, I agree with everything you said (I think).

How would you get #1 accomplished with the OTC tag system that we currently have?

[bobcat]

There are four things that need to be done.  1.)Get the game department to manage every unit for an older age class of deer.

I don't have time to comment on your entire post, but on this one item in order for that to happen general seasons would have to be eliminated and all deer hunting would be by permit only. That is something that is very unlikely to happen, at least at this point in time. I could see it happening in the future if/when things get much worse than they are now. (meaning more people and less game)

[littletoes]

Raising the price will only make it a Sport for those that can afford the higher prices. Not fair to the poor.
Is that ethical?

The Managers "want" more money, they have higher costs too. But placing the Hunting Heritage out of reach for those that can barley afford it, may not be an ethical advance.

For example....if Washington made it possible for us to be able to hunt with any Weapon in a single year, such as the the use of a bow during a bow season, and if you didn't get your animal, you could use a rifle during rifle season-*With the purchase of an additional Modern Firearm Tag, this would generate some revenue for the State, but again would allow "those that can afford it" more hunting opportunity, developing less 'care' for those that can't. (did I make this point clear enough? Or did I screw the pooch?).
Again, is that Ethical? Is that Fair? I say 'No'.

[littletoes]

For example....if Washington made it possible for us to be able to hunt with any Weapon in a single year, such as the the use of a bow during a bow season, and if you didn't get your animal, you could use a rifle during rifle season-*With the purchase of an additional Modern Firearm Tag, this would generate some revenue for the State, 

Personly, I would LOVE this. I could hunt with a Bow, AND a Rifle, but I have not contacted the State over this issue due to my feelings of it not being "Right" for those that just plain don't have the income, and afraid of just plain "Heading down that Road", and never coming back.

Man I have a terrible time expressing myself in the written form!

[Bigshooter]

Curly,  I would do what oregon has done, general otc tags in the west, and to a unit by unit draw on the east side.  The only difference would be I would manage every unit for an older age class of deer.  Oregon mostly manages for opportunity!  With a select few units managed for an older age class of deer.


Also it wasn't that long ago that you could hunt the bow season and if you didn't kill you could buy a modern firearm tag, or a muzzle loader tag and hunt that season to in washington.  But people complained that there were to many people hunting in each season, and that the game was not being manged properly,  (maybe an over harvest) and the game department got rid of letting everybody hunt every season.


As far as hunting being a rich mans sport.  It is.  I hate to say it.  But I save a lot of money to hunt every year.  I apply in 7 or 8 western states each year.  And it cost me a little less than a $1000 a year in nonrefunded dollars to do this.  A few extra dollars in my home state wouldn't kill me.
Also you wouldn't be paying any more money to hunt general seasons.  It would only cost you more to apply for permitts.

[Bigshooter]

One other thing is washington has kind of got back to letting us hunt all of the general seasons.  There is the multiseason permit that lets you hunt any general season in washington.  They have given out 1500 deer permits, and 500 elk permits the last two years.  You have to apply by march.

[bobcat]

The only difference would be I would manage every unit for an older age class of deer.  Oregon mostly manages for opportunity!  With a select few units managed for an older age class of deer.

The problem with this is the majority of hunters don't hunt for big antlers. Many would be happy to kill a spike. If every unit was managed only for trophy bucks, then the number of hunters would have to be drastically reduced, and that ain't gonna happen.

[Bigshooter]

Bobcat,  I can't recall the year, but about 6 or 8 years ago Colorado went to a unit by unit draw across the entire state.  The public did not want this to happen, but the game department thought it was for the best.  Now 8 years later Colorado has the best mule deer hunting of any state out there.  Some units have 3 different rifle deer seasons in them two which are Nov. hunts and this isn't counting the bow and muzzleloader seasons.  They have a lot of nonresidents applying there now.  I saw a chart a few months ago that showed that nonresidents were making up 90 perecent of all the reveune that the state receives each year.

Basically what i'm getting at is if washington would manage every unit for an older age class of deer, first it would make a lot more units in washington more desirable to hunt.  This would spread out hunters in a lot of different units.  It might make it the same as colorado and we might have 2 or 3 different seasons on each unit.  But still maintaining the older age class of deer.  And once word got out more nonresidents would be apply here, generating more money for the state as a whole.

I know not everybody would be able to hunt every year.  But there are some years that I won't to quit hunting because all I am able to hunt is general seasons with 1000's of other people.  I am more than willing to hunt every other year or even longer between hunts to have a more enjoyable hunting expereince.

[bobcat]

I agree with you and I wouldn't mind sitting out a year or two because I'd just find other things to hunt (ducks, pheasants, geese, grouse, bear, cougar, etc.) But I am just saying that it will never happen here because the majority want to hunt deer and elk every single year. 

[Bigshooter]

Never say never.  They said it would never happen in Colorado.