An 'ex-WA elk hunter' speaks

[Dave Workman]

Well said sitka

Actually, Sitka ignores one very important piece of this puzzle he has layed out.

The number of hunters in the field. THAT counts for something.

In 1975, Washington fielded 346,197 paid hunting license holders according to data from the USFWS.

Ten years later, in 1985, that number had declined to 298,193.

Last year, the number was 194,272.  According to my math that's more than 150,000 hunters lost in the state.

You figure that not all of those people hunt elk. That's a given.

Yet back in the day, we were able to sustain longer seasons for a lot more hunters.  We have, allegedly, healthy elk herds. Their populations need to be managed properly, but now with shorter seasons and earlier seasons designed to reduce the harvest, one must ponder seriously whether we hunters are being considered just one more competitor against:

Mountain Lions
Wolves
Other predators
Tribal hunters

Seems to me that the hunters, who pay the freight (as opposed to growing populations of predators that pay nothing) are getting the crap end of the stick.

In summation, the answer is YES...the remaining licensed hunters deserve longer time in the field and more opportunity to notch a tag. Those who want to hold out for a trophy...do it. Those satisfied with meat in the cooler, be my guest.

I just hunted Yakima County around Bethel Ridge and Devil's Table.  I talked to guys who were disappointed to furious about the season. I watched several crews pull out before the second weekend, and they were uniformly pissed, at least the ones I spoke with. The snow started falling just as the season was wrapping up.  Back when I started hunting, we would start the season with falling leaves and work through the first snowfall that made the herds start moving.

And if we didn't score, we could still hunt with a bow or muzzleloader in a late season by getting the additional permit.

The hunting population here has declined by about 40-45% in my adult lifetime.

So, what's the answer? It has many facets.

Restore hound hunting for cougars and take the population down. Ditto black bears. It might keep them out of the suburbs.

Reduce the wolf management plateau from 15 breeding pairs to five. We're already there or close to it and it doesn't have to require a wolf population all over the state.  If Seattle tree huggers want wolves....release a pack in the Green Lake neighborhood. That's a sure cure for the Farley Mowatt syndrome. 

Poachers: Crack down on them hard and I don't give a rip if they belong to a tribe. Hammer them. Thrill killers like this character allegedly has done in the Okanogan...put them in prison. That strips them of the right to possess a firearm or ammunition. Find them with a gun anytime in the future, violate them right back to the pen for felon in possession.

Oh, and anybody who advocates rolling over and going to permit-only hunting, and further cutting back on sportsman opportunity....should be flogged.   

Whew.  I need to take a nap.  At my age I tire easily..
Dinosaurs do.

[Dave Workman]

ALL of the elk hunters (20+) in a couple of the eastern Washington hunt areas that shared their sincere thoughts with me regarding the modern firearm general elk season indicated discontent with the current elk hunting situation.  This does not include those that have already decided to NOT to hunt in Washington anymore because of the current situation.  When 100% of a sample of hunters indicates significant issues with the current regulations, seasons, road and campsite closures/decommissioning (destruction), and a perception of wildlife management to maximize revenue, one might conclude there are very real issues that need to be addressed. 


There are most likely some WDFW personnel that take part in, or monitor some of the posts in this forum.  Although we should all take part in WDFW public comment and meeting opportunities to express these concerns, WDFW personnel that read these posts should consider informing the WDFW Commission and the WDFW leadership of what hunters in the field are experiencing and saying. 

Dave Workman - Thank you for starting this thread.  It is helping to shine a spotlight on many issues that need to be addressed by the WDFW and hunters that are willing to get engaged in the process.

They do, but maybe they don't care.

That guy Workman...he gets me into more trouble than is worthwhile.

[Dave Workman]

2013 Elk Hunt

After a week of hunting elk in “prime” Washington elk habitat, no elk were harvested by any of the several experienced hunters in elk camp during the modern firearm general elk season.  A legal elk in the GMUs would have been a spike or antlerless with the proper permit.  The descriptions of the good old days sounds like the way it should be.  However, the current situation is far different.  What happened?  The story seems to be the same from many hunters.

Ahem.... clean out your P.M.  INBOX   

[huntrights]

Ahem.... clean out your P.M.  INBOX   

Done. 

[Brute]

That guy Workman...he gets me into more trouble than is worthwhile.
[/quote]



I wish Bill Monroe of the Oregonian would stick up for hunters the way you are Workman. He seems to be more worried about the Beavers new logo.
We are having some of the same issues as Washington hunters are experiencing here in Oregon.
At least by putting the article into the paper more then just the people on this forum will be seeing it. 

[huntrights]

Other states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters.  Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk?

No need for me to read further than that. You're way off base if you're trying to compare Washington with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

Those states have a much lower human population, way more public land, and a whole lot more wildlife habitat that supports wildlife.

Those states don't need to have all the restrictions we have, due to all of the differences I listed above. Pretty basic knowledge- I really shouldn't have to explain it, SHOULD I??    


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Point taken.  However, all states with elk populations will obviously vary in their management methods and policies.  The primary issue being brought forth in this thread is that there appears to be a large number of elk hunters that are complaining about the same issues; that might indicate there are some issues that should be addressed by the WDFW and the affected hunters.

Since you brought up the differences between states, I looked into some of the differences.  Finding the exact amount of suitable elk habitat per state would take more time than I am willing to spend on this right now; however, I did find a map showing relative areas of elk habitat in the western United States (see attached picture).  I focused on 2010 numbers because that was the most recent human population census.  Note: Washington elk hunter success in 2012 was 13.5%; I was told the weather was the likely cause of the increase.  A significant difference between Washington and the other states is the hunter to elk ratio and the success rates.



State        Human Pop.     Elk Pop. Est.     Elk Hunter No.     Hunter to Elk Ratio      Elk Harvest      Success
Idaho          1,567,582        116,800           77,112                0.66                            17,470      22.7%
Montana        989,415           117,880           103,090              0.87                           24,744           24.0%
Washington   6,724,540        60,000             71,418                1.19                           7,060            9.9%
Wyoming      563,626           90,000             53,780                0.60                           25,672           47.7%


Sources:   
Human Population (2010):   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
    
    
Elk Population:   
Idaho (based on last flight survey 1997 to 2011):   http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010):   http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/
Washington  (Unpublished est. from WDFW):   Unpublished est. from WDFW.
Wyoming:   http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31498
    
    
Elk Hunter Numbers:   
Idaho (2010):   http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010):   http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010):   http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01327/wdfw01327.pdf
Wyoming (2010):   http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
    
    
Elk Harvest:   
Idaho (2010):   http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010):   http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010):   http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html
Wyoming (2010):   http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf


Elk range per RMEF
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx?elkrange=true&projects=false

[Humptulips]

A report from up by Quinault. Out every day and haven't seen an elk or a fresh track. I've heard two shots all season.
That would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. A lot of guys have gave up. I've seen three hunters so far this season.
I see acording to WDFW the Olympic herd is at target numbers. Either they have reduced their target or they are not looking.

I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.

The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.

None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.

I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.


Wolves Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today. 

[csaaphill]

I wrote our region one people on these concerns reply I got he will forward it to those in charge.
Guess that's a start.
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
When these 3pt minimums came in, and spike only seasons began I was in my 20's and liked the 3pt minimum for a while, but didnt like the spike only. Have continuasly hunted even though bigger restrictions, but the point is sometimes status quoe isn't right!
WE NEED A CHANGE!
Something that keeps changing too not this change once then stay for a millinium but keep changing every few years!

[Dave Workman]

I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.

The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.

None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.

I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.

Wolves Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today.

The cougar regs CAN be changed, but it doesn't appear anybody on the WDFW has the gonads to seriously lobby and EDUCATE the legislature.
What it may take, heaven forbid, is for a hungry cougar or two to come visit a day care or elementary school, or to dine on a few hikers or joggers.

Then watch how fast lawmakers act.

It's rather odd, isn't it?  Lawmakers will push for gun bans because of what "might" happen in the future. But lobby for a reduction in the cougar population because of what "might" happen is a no-no.  That kind of hypocrisy is going to get somebody killed, just like in California where joggers have already been killed and partially eaten.

I have the perfect solution:  Cougars at the capitol campus. And throw in a hungry wolf pack for good measure. Change will come so fast your eyeballs will click watching the progress.

[Dave Workman]

From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!

Part of the reason is that some of these people are still so wet behind the ears they believe what they see on television. Status quo is fine. Elk hunting is being followed by a cameraman to see a bunch of big bulls tracking through some timber.

Defending the situation now is indefensible. Suggesting permit-only hunting and more road closures is go-along to get-along, and amounts to capitulation, usually with one's head up one's rectum.  Maybe selfishness has a lot to do with it, and I saw that back in the 80s when some user group advocates thought they'd get a great wilderness experience by forcing a weapons choice. Ultimately they've been screwed.

It's time to re-evaluate the permit hunting system we currently have.

The one thing these 80s people don't get is that one day, they will not be able to get around as well as they think they can now.

BTW:  HUNTRIGHTS... good work on the data and numbers.

And BRUTE:  I've been sticking up for hunters for many years.  It's because I am a hunter. 

[Special T]

I actually think the reason why people are OK with the status quo is because the are mentally lazy.  It takes a LOT of effort to push back against the state, and it takes a fair bit of effort to be knowledgeable on an issue. I know some of what we talk about would be considered "Common Sense" but believe it or not that sense is a learned trait, one that really isn't being taught any more.

[Buzz2401]

   I guess I don't get it, because all I see is that we have the highest density of hunters and almost the least amount of elk and not really any room to increase herd size do to needed wintering grounds.  So I only see two viable options. 1. reduce predators drastically or 2. Go to a permit only system.   Going to a permit only system doesn't mean that you will have to wait a bunch of years to hunt, it does mean that there could be 20-30% less people in the field which would increase success rate.  I always thought a good idea could be that 50% of hunters get to hunt for deer one year while the other 50% get to hunt elk then switch around the next year.  Then you could provide longer seasons with less restrictions.

[Buzz2401]

But I really do love the folks on this site who go the route that if your opinion is different then theirs, then you are apparently stupid or have no common sense. Its so ridiculous its comical

[rtspring]

   I guess I don't get it, because all I see is that we have the highest density of hunters and almost the least amount of elk and not really any room to increase herd size do to needed wintering grounds.  So I only see two viable options. 1. reduce predators drastically or 2. Go to a permit only system.   Going to a permit only system doesn't mean that you will have to wait a bunch of years to hunt, it does mean that there could be 20-30% less people in the field which would increase success rate.  I always thought a good idea could be that 50% of hunters get to hunt for deer one year while the other 50% get to hunt elk then switch around the next year.  Then you could provide longer seasons with less restrictions.

Monetary gain by the state would suffer, although it may be a good idea. It will never fly in this state..

[Dave Workman]

   I guess I don't get it, because all I see is that we have the highest density of hunters and almost the least amount of elk and not really any room to increase herd size do to needed wintering grounds.  So I only see two viable options. 1. reduce predators drastically or 2. Go to a permit only system.   Going to a permit only system doesn't mean that you will have to wait a bunch of years to hunt, it does mean that there could be 20-30% less people in the field which would increase success rate.  I always thought a good idea could be that 50% of hunters get to hunt for deer one year while the other 50% get to hunt elk then switch around the next year.  Then you could provide longer seasons with less restrictions.

Everything you say amounts to PEOPLE management, rather than GAME management. The alternating hunting options is kind of intriguing, but i don't believe it would ever fly because people who hunt want to hunt, not play games.

But I really do love the folks on this site who go the route that if your opinion is different then theirs, then you are apparently stupid or have no common sense. Its so ridiculous its comical

Well, if one falls into the 'Less is the new More' category, there's not much to defend that.

Respect is something one earns. It isn't earned with silly notions about placing more limits on someone's hunting opportunities.

What you witness here is a cultural disagreement between people who are from around here and have been around here for a long time; people who know what we had and what we've lost and they want it back because they believe there are ways we can get it back...and people who are from a younger generation primarily, and many who ain't from around here, who — like it or not — are really part of the problem by having moved here from somewhere else and have a different mindset about permits, and drawings, and what "quality" is. Or, they are products of the late 1970s or 1980s now in their wonderful youth, full of piss and vinegar (and sometimes horse$#!t) who are willing to go along with what they've got because it's all they've ever known.

Now, being "from around here" is as much a mindset as a heritage. A lot of people on this forum are 2nd or 3rd generation Northwesterners and Washingtonians. They have witnessed that which they criticize and condemn because, in some cases at least, they had the smarts to predict a lot of this stuff 20-30 years ago. They were right then, and they are right now.

Disagreement and debate isn't unhealthy. it's the life's blood of any social system, including the hunting fraternity.

Don't be too hasty to criticize somebody for having little patience. This is the Northwest and it can be a pretty harsh environment that doesn't suffer foolishness. There are literally hundreds of years of combined experience on this forum, and a lot of that experience — with the state — has been unpleasant and, shall we say, disappointing.

Welcome aboard after your first 35 posts.  Watch your topknot. 

You must tell us about yourself.