An 'ex-WA elk hunter' speaks

[Elkaholic daWg]

  

Gotta love those that carry DFW water on here (we all know who they are)
 Kinda like he knows  not with who he sleeps, promoting people control while considering oneself a "conservative" while actually a Statist

[idahohuntr]

The data from huntrights shows we have the most hunters per elk of the states shown...we have 5-6x the human population, and people think liberalizing seasons is the solution?  I guess I see it as you can have more opportunity or more quality, but not both.  Both sides have legitimate arguments.  The guys who want to limit opportunity and reduce hunter density are seeking quality...in terms of animals and experience.  Guys who want long, liberal seasons want to hunt every year in lots of places and are willing to sacrifice success rate and trophy quality.  Anyone who advocates we can have both (liberal seasons and good success rates) for more than a few years without significant and long-term reductions in human population, hunter numbers, habitat alteration etc...they are probably also selling some oceanfront property in Arizona...for cheap.

[Curly]

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.

 

This is an example of why us sportsmen get so frustrated with WDFW.  We know what could happen if they really wanted to manage game. 

In 1997 (right after the hound, bear baiting, and trapping initiatives went into effect) the WDFW should have implemented measures to increase taking of predators.  Instead, we've had 17 years of predator protection and decline of huntable wildlife.   (No matter what the WDFW population estimate numbers say for deer and elk, I know I've seen less deer and elk than what I saw in the 80's and early 90's).

[Buzz2401]

"You must tell us about yourself."

Well you are correct I am of a younger generation, I am 34yo and have lived in Washington my whole life along with the past 3 generations of my family. I have been hunting in washington since I was 10 and consider myself a very successful hunter. I love Washington and can't imagine ever leaving. I honestly do believe the WDFW is doing the best that they can but I also believe they have an incredibly difficult job and they have a lot of people to please, not just hunters.  I have my opinion and though it may be different from yours I do appreciate your fight for our rights. Thank You

[csaaphill]

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.

lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days 
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!

[huntnphool]

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.

lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days 
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!

Its easy to sit behind a computer and complain, but this thread is short on suggested solutions. Lets hear what you guys propose, and lets have realistic ideas too, not acts of congress!!!

[Humptulips]

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.

Dave,
I don't believe anything can be changed in the Legislature by WDFWs initiative.
I sat and watched Donny Matorella (Large Carnivore Section Manager) give one heck of a presentation on changing the cougar regs vis-a-vie hound hunting before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources two years ago.
The bill died thanks to Representatives Dunshee and Van De Wege.
Those same people are still in office and they will continue to kill any bill to liberalize hound hunting or trapping.

WDFW could make the changes I suggested by only going before the Fish & Wildlife Commission. That might be doable.

[Humptulips]

The data from huntrights shows we have the most hunters per elk of the states shown...we have 5-6x the human population, and people think liberalizing seasons is the solution?  I guess I see it as you can have more opportunity or more quality, but not both.  Both sides have legitimate arguments.  The guys who want to limit opportunity and reduce hunter density are seeking quality...in terms of animals and experience.  Guys who want long, liberal seasons want to hunt every year in lots of places and are willing to sacrifice success rate and trophy quality.  Anyone who advocates we can have both (liberal seasons and good success rates) for more than a few years without significant and long-term reductions in human population, hunter numbers, habitat alteration etc...they are probably also selling some oceanfront property in Arizona...for cheap.

You can have more opportunity and quality but you need more elk to do it.
I live and hunt here on the west side of the Penninsula and have for about 45 years. There used to be a ton of elk hunters, camps everywhere. The elk are scarce now and so are the hunters. Hunters go where there are elk and if we had as many as we used to have here we would undoubtably get some back. Spread the hunters out and you reduce crowding and you get back quality.
I've seen three hunters this elk season. That was just passing them on the road not out in the brush. Haven't even seen a man track off the road. I have quality out the wazoo, just no elk.

Figure out how to bring the elk back and the rest of the problems solve themselves.

[Sitka_Blacktail]

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.

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.

Whoa old salt, 2nd or third generation you say? I'm 4th generation on one side of the family and fifth on the other side. I'll also be 60 this year.  So I'm no wet behind the ear puppy. And even tho I'm not in near the shape I was in at 30, I'm not afraid to work to have a good hunt. I plan on continuing until I can't any more then, I'll be done. Nobody will owe me an easy hunt. Trying to intimidate me with your "wisdom" is a waste of time.

Now if you want to talk issues have at it. If you want to huff and puff about your Northwestness all you'll get is an eye roll from me.

So lets take your issue of managing people and not animals. Of course they are managing people, people kill the animals they are charged with managing, so people are part of the equation. Just like you want them to manage predators to manage the herd. What do you think hunters are but a very evolved predator. What do you think a hunting season is. It's a way to manage people. Dates are set to manage people. Antler restrictions manage people. Buck seasons, doe seasons manage people. The alternative to managing people is no closed season and any animal is legal. How many animals will you have left to hunt then? "Managing people" aren't dirty words. It's a prudent management technique.

Now lets go to your complaints about having to choose a weapon and with elk, east or west side. You think that's bad? You seem to like Idaho's management. They have 29 different elk zones and you have to choose one. Then you have to pick A tag or B tag. You either hunt modern with the B tag, or you get to hunt longer early and late seasons with archery or muzzleloader. Then you have to choose between a regular deer tag or a whitetail tag. With a regular tag you hunt early and in more units and you can take a mule deer. But if you want to hunt Whitetails in the rut, you pick the whitetail tag and get way fewer units. And you know what? All these choices you have to pick in Idaho are for the same thing you hate in Washington.......... To manage hunters, spread out effort, and protect herds from getting hit too hard, and to give more and different opportunities to hunters. I like having the different choices and I might not make the same choice every year because I like different challenges or one year a certain time frame might work for me and another year it might not. If every hunter could hunt every season, all our seasons would be shortened drastically. A herd can only stand a certain rate of exploitation and then it starts to decline. That can change from year to year depending on many different factors from weather, such as drouth and snow pack, to logging activity, forest fires, predation, and on and on. Some times it can depend on when the first snow occurs or on the west side if we get a big wind storm to blow the leaves off the trees. The managers can't control it all, most of it is in Mother Nature's hands. They have to factor it all in, look at long term trends and come up with a plan that will fit the parameters for keeping the herds at a sustainable level. It's easy to second guess them, but there aren't many who could do their jobs under the same constraints they have to operate under.

As bad a job as you think they do, I know people who get their deer every year and people who get an elk most years. Some parts of success are up to the hunter.

[huntnphool]

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.

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.

Whoa old salt, 2nd or third generation you say? I'm 4th generation on one side of the family and fifth on the other side. I'll also be 60 this year.  So I'm no wet behind the ear puppy. And even tho I'm not in near the shape I was in at 30, I'm not afraid to work to have a good hunt. I plan on continuing until I can't any more then, I'll be done. Nobody will owe me an easy hunt. Trying to intimidate me with your "wisdom" is a waste of time.

Now if you want to talk issues have at it. If you want to huff and puff about your Northwestness all you'll get is an eye roll from me.

So lets take your issue of managing people and not animals. Of course they are managing people, people kill the animals they are charged with managing, so people are part of the equation. Just like you want them to manage predators to manage the herd. What do you think hunters are but a very evolved predator. What do you think a hunting season is. It's a way to manage people. Dates are set to manage people. Antler restrictions manage people. Buck seasons, doe seasons manage people. The alternative to managing people is no closed season and any animal is legal. How many animals will you have left to hunt then? "Managing people" aren't dirty words. It's a prudent management technique.

Now lets go to your complaints about having to choose a weapon and with elk, east or west side. You think that's bad? You seem to like Idaho's management. They have 29 different elk zones and you have to choose one. Then you have to pick A tag or B tag. You either hunt modern with the B tag, or you get to hunt longer early and late seasons with archery or muzzleloader. Then you have to choose between a regular deer tag or a whitetail tag. With a regular tag you hunt early and in more units and you can take a mule deer. But if you want to hunt Whitetails in the rut, you pick the whitetail tag and get way fewer units. And you know what? All these choices you have to pick in Idaho are for the same thing you hate in Washington.......... To manage hunters, spread out effort, and protect herds from getting hit too hard, and to give more and different opportunities to hunters. I like having the different choices and I might not make the same choice every year because I like different challenges or one year a certain time frame might work for me and another year it might not. If every hunter could hunt every season, all our seasons would be shortened drastically. A herd can only stand a certain rate of exploitation and then it starts to decline. That can change from year to year depending on many different factors from weather, such as drouth and snow pack, to logging activity, forest fires, predation, and on and on. Some times it can depend on when the first snow occurs or on the west side if we get a big wind storm to blow the leaves off the trees. The managers can't control it all, most of it is in Mother Nature's hands. They have to factor it all in, look at long term trends and come up with a plan that will fit the parameters for keeping the herds at a sustainable level. It's easy to second guess them, but there aren't many who could do their jobs under the same constraints they have to operate under.

As bad a job as you think they do, I know people who get their deer every year and people who get an elk most years. Some parts of success are up to the hunter.

Idaho does have "quality" units too though, something Washington doesn't have.

[hub]

Managing people is is not all bad.I can agree to a certain extent. All elk states do it. Others on here have pointed out several times that our state does nothing to bring elk numbers back to numbers they used to be. We have alot less hunters today than back in the 80,s. The bethel ridge 360 unit had more hunters back then and one hell of a lot of elk. There were no road closures at all. Hunters would spread out and everyone was happy. When the south fork of Oak creek washed out they decided not to put it back in. Now everyone his forced to pack into the north fork and hunt on top of each other. The problem is further aggravated with green dot closures on roads that are usable. Take Horse ridge for an example. It was a know hot spot for killing elk. Why do you think they closed it. Then they move the season up to further limit the kill. When I hunted oak creek in 80,s the season started on Nov.4 and ended about the 14th. By the 2nd week of Nov the place was crawlling with elk. I used to see 200 to 300 elk per hunt. One year we killed 3 cows without leaving camp. They issued 300 that year  as I recall. A lot of bulls were also taken in those times. All kinds of bulls. Any bull. We were told the spike only rule was needed for five years to increase the number of big breeder bulls. That was what 20 years ago. With a lot fewer hunters and fewer elk I want answers. The game Dept knows they are managing hunters and not the game. Thats the problem. I,m tired of being lied to. The numbers do not tell the whole story, but they make me ask some serious guestions. Most of the bulls in the Oak creek area are dying of old age. I,m tired of hearing the crap we don,t know how to hunt. 

[csaaphill]

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.

lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days 
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!

Its easy to sit behind a computer and complain, but this thread is short on suggested solutions. Lets hear what you guys propose, and lets have realistic ideas too, not acts of congress!!!

I have like I said dont include in the stay behind a computer. I wrote the wdfw as stated with my ideas.
One is to change things around every few years instead of status quoe. I have actually posted here some of my ideas.
Like get rid of this points system crap I hear so much grief over it. Bring back the waiting period like there was when successfull in the field. change these 3pt minimums. shange the spike only seasons bring back longer seasons which btw there is a way to do without culling the whole damned herd like some of you cleary think will happen.
waiting a reply so again don't push me in that bunch!

[csaaphill]

I think were the product of the divide and conquer strategy. WDFW doesn't realy care who wins they will still have a job no matter!
This has been on the agenda long ago for the antis get us out of the woods lose our funds then take over. it's also part of their wolf crap for if theres too many wolves and not enough deer elk then they can ban it.
SO instead of letting them win how about working together but that's like f*****ng puling teeth!
No ownder were losing more ground each year!

[JLS]

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

Your success rate comparison is apples to oranges though.   Washington does not offer near the same amount of opportunity to shoot bulls and cows on a OTC tag like you can in some hunt districts in WY, MT, and ID.  Therefore, the success rate does not really compare the quality of the hunting in terms of harvest.  Especially when you consider that areas like the Blues, the Colockum, and the Yakima units are all restricted to spike only.  That will drastically skew your harvest stats.

And, let's face it.  In terms of available geographic area to disperse elk hunters, Washington is quite lacking relative to these states. 

[Elkaholic daWg]

I think were the product of the divide and conquer strategy. WDFW doesn't realy care who wins they will still have a job no matter!
This has been on the agenda long ago for the antis get us out of the woods lose our funds then take over. it's also part of their wolf crap for if theres too many wolves and not enough deer elk then they can ban it.
SO instead of letting them win how about working together but that's like f*****ng puling teeth!
No ownder were losing more ground each year!

Kind of like us old folks remember when the ONLY special permit was a antlerless (They called it cow) permit.