An 'ex-WA elk hunter' speaks

[snowpack]

I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.

On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.

Just a quick check on the WDFW website, in 1997, 68,492 hunters purchased tags, and harvested 4,919 Elk,
In 2012, 94, 590 hunters purchased tags, (an increase of 28,098 close to 40%) and harvested 9162 Elk, (an increase of 4,242 or over 50%)
 The reason "the good old days" were just that, before it was so cool to be a hunter, I know I have introduced the sport to at least a dozen new hunters.
And every year I meet someone else interested, especially my children.
Read These forums, good stories, great success photos of beautiful Bulls every year...
Lots of Elk meat ending up in freezers...
Sure other states are looking attractive, but that is just because they have not been "Californicated" yet, Washington’s population grew from 4.1 million in 1980 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 8.8 million by 2040.
You think it is bad now, wait until then...

From the harvest reports it does show tag sales going up quite a bit, but also in the next column is showing that the number of elk hunters continues to drop.  So more people buy tags but fewer and fewer are actually hunting. Wonder the reasoning for that?  Applying for special permits/points only and not hunting if not drawn?

[Dave Workman]

I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.

On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.

Just a quick check on the WDFW website, in 1997, 68,492 hunters purchased tags, and harvested 4,919 Elk,
In 2012, 94, 590 hunters purchased tags, (an increase of 28,098 close to 40%) and harvested 9162 Elk, (an increase of 4,242 or over 50%)
 The reason "the good old days" were just that, before it was so cool to be a hunter, I know I have introduced the sport to at least a dozen new hunters.
And every year I meet someone else interested, especially my children.
Read These forums, good stories, great success photos of beautiful Bulls every year...
Lots of Elk meat ending up in freezers...
Sure other states are looking attractive, but that is just because they have not been "Californicated" yet, Washington’s population grew from 4.1 million in 1980 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 8.8 million by 2040.
You think it is bad now, wait until then...

From the harvest reports it does show tag sales going up quite a bit, but also in the next column is showing that the number of elk hunters continues to drop.  So more people buy tags but fewer and fewer are actually hunting. Wonder the reasoning for that?  Applying for special permits/points only and not hunting if not drawn?

Did you pull this from a different thread?

[snowpack]

nope, reply number 32.

[Dave Workman]

nope, reply number 32.

It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from

[Bob33]

nope, reply number 32.

It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/

[snowpack]

nope, reply number 32.

It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/  WDFW harvest reports.  You can ferret out all kinds of info from the different years and species.
shows a quick run up in hunters to around year 2000 or so then a decline in hunters back to about 1997 numbers.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

nope, reply number 32.

It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/  WDFW harvest reports.  You can ferret out all kinds of info from the different years and species.
shows a quick run up in hunters to around year 2000 or so then a decline in hunters back to about 1997 numbers.

I wish it went back a lot further.

[bobcat]

This entire thread is ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that in most parts of the state we do NOT have excessive numbers of game. It's also obvious there is no shortage of hunters. We don't need increased opportunity to kill more deer and elk. It's unbelievable to me that anyone would think that. If anything we need shorter seasons and a decrease in the number of deer and elk tags issued each year.

[baldopepper]

I went on my first "big game" hunting trip in 1956, carried a rifle afield for the first time in 1962.  I won't even begin to go into all the changes I've seen over the years, but a  couple of the major ones in my opinion are:
1) Hunter mentalilty-in the good old days, as many refer to them, you actually had a lot more meat hunters.  In the 60 and 70's a hunter who held out for a buck or a bull rather than shoot the first animal he saw, was considered a trophy hunter.  The demand for quality hunts was minimal.  No one would have ever dreamed of multi season tags because there were very few archery hunters and even less who hunted with muzzle loaders.  We've evolved to a hunter mind set now where quality hunts are in demand and not just for modern rifle, but the archers want them and muzzleloaders also want them.   Not only quality hunts from a trophy animal point of view, but also an isolated hunt with no or very few other hunters to compete with.  Hence we've lost huge areas not only to private leases, but also to quality hunt draws on once open to everyone public ground. Sure, there are still  meat hunters out there and many hunt just as a good excuse to get out, but the quality hunt demand has greatly influenced both our game departments and also large landowners who cash in the huge amounts some hunters are willing to pay for their quality hunts. In the good old days, game departments set out a 10 day or 2 week  hunt for modern rifle and that covered 90% of all the hunters-obviously that wouldn't work now. Every group  wants their time in the field, how do you spread this time out and keep everyone happy?  You don't!
2) Technology - I tend to agree with those who talk  of the advancements in equipment.  Not just better guns, bows, bullets and optics but also the other gear.  Geeze, just taking hunting boots as an example.  When I first started a good pair of hunting boots were good, uninsulated leather boots that most guys wore to work in also.  At best your feet froze at 30 degrees and at worst a couple of hours at 10 degrees and your toes were frost bit. If you wanted to hike into the back country for a 4-5 day hunt your gear alone would weigh 100 lbs because a sleeping bag to keep you warm at 32 degrees would alone weigh 20 pounds. Everything from camping gear to optics is so much better now that hunting efficiency is 10  times (in my opinion )  what it used to be.  And on a larger scale our technologies  have allowed us to open up huge tracts of land for logging and oil exploration  etc. that even 30 years ago were roadless tracts and inaccessible to all but the most hardy.  Now days with better cars and road systems hunters think nothing of driving 200-300 miles for just a one day hunt and when he gets there he unloads his ATV and goes in another 15-20 on roads that used to be impassable.
How do game departments keep up with all this, especially when you combine it with the demands of the new urban outdoors people who want to move out to traditional hunting grounds and build homes and mini ranches.  People who think we should be introducing wolves into already stressed big game areas and let the predators do the natural game management thing.
I've hunted and fished all over the west and every state has the same complaints about game management and the same dream to return to the good old days.  I'm glad I just get to be an armchair quarterback and not have to keep all these varied game experts happy.

[huntnphool]

Just a rebuttal to you stating that most dont use technology.

Not only have I never said that, I never suggested it either, get your facts strait.

Notice that i never once said anything about the affect on the seasons.

 The seasons are a large part of the OP's discussion, mentioning technology as you have suggests it played a role in the changes the OP is discussing, which it didn't, and has no relevance in the discussion.

[Fowlweather25]

Im not the one who originally mentioned technology. I simply disagreed with you when you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices. You made a comment that technology hasnt changed much nor is it being employed more than it was in the "good ol days". My facts are straight bud. Maybe its you who should quit manipulating words and peoples meanings to suit your so called point.

[huntnphool]

you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.

Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.

Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.

Technically, you said this " things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes."

I disagree with your assessment and I think Fowlweather does too. Anything that ups the success rate, from more hunters, to better gear, to better optics, to more information, to more roads, to more accurate shooting justifies season changes and restrictions if you want to have a sustaining herd base to hunt.

[huntnnw]

I dont see much in drastic changes since 1985..harvest wise...I remember when you could rifle hunt whitetails thru Thanksgiving!!

[huntnphool]

you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.

Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.

Technically, you said this " things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes."

I disagree with your assessment and I think Fowlweather does too. Anything that ups the success rate, from more hunters, to better gear, to better optics, to more information, to more roads, to more accurate shooting justifies season changes and restrictions if you want to have a sustaining herd base to hunt.

I agree that advancements in gear can lead to increased success and is grounds for season restrictions, however it's not the case in this discussion.

The big season changes came before the most advanced gear used today. Of the similar gear used in '85, the difference's have not increased hunter success to the point of justifying season changes. Anything used today that was not widely used at the point of those changes is irrelivent in this discussion