WDFW seeks comments: 2015-17 hunting season proposals

[Ridgerunner]

I want to see the mule deer proposals.

[t6]

Anybody got a list of who is on the GMAC?   

[idahohuntr]

I want to see the mule deer proposals.

There were several mule deer specific topics...offering some 2 pt permits, reducing seasons in gmu 382, extending mf season to always go at least to Oct 25...a few others I think.

[police women of America]

Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me 

I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.

isn't baiting deer illegal already???

No but it seems a lot of people think it is.

cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.

It's a controversial issue that some people including some hunters greatly dislike. I think that's why it doesn't get talked about as much as many other issues.

For baiting they are considering the following alternatives:
No Change
Banning all big game baiting (deer, elk, sheep, moose, goat)
Banning all big game baiting, except food plots and crops left for wildlife in normal agricultural practices
Banning only guides and outfitters from baiting

man, disappointing they don't want to educate new hunters with all the laws whether
they agree with them or not. Personally I think it should stay legal.

[CarbonHunter]

Special permit drawing:
 Alternative #1: Allocate 50% of available permits to those with 10 or more points. Within this category, allocate proportional to number of points squared. The remaining 50% of available permits are distributed among all applicants according to the number of points squared. In most cases, this will have the effect of further advantaging those with 10 or more points, at the expense of those with fewer.
 Alternative #2: Allocate 25% of available permits to those with 10 or more points. Within this category, allocate proportional to number of points squared. The remaining 75% of available permits are distributed among all applicants according to the number of points squared. In most cases, this will have the effect of further advantaging those with 10 or more points, at the expense of those with fewer (although less dramatically than alternative 1).
 Alternative #3: Allocate 10% of available permits to hunters 65 years and older.
 Alternative #4: Status quo (no change). Points are squared.

Does anyone know what the current % is for people drawing OIL permits that already have greater than 10 points?

Allocating 50% to hunters with greater than 10 points sounds like they are doing nothing to increase the odds for OIL permits. Maybe it should be 75% for hunters with greater than 15 points. At least for the OIL permits.

[bobcat]

Those things will do nothing to increase odds for special permits. Even if it increases odds for some, it decreases odds for others. To actually increase odds, you either need to increase the number of permits or decrease the number of applicants. Those options listed do neither.

[CarbonHunter]

  I'm with you Bobcat.

It also seems to me that they already proposed these ideas a few years back.

[idahohuntr]

Those things will do nothing to increase odds for special permits. Even if it increases odds for some, it decreases odds for others. To actually increase odds, you either need to increase the number of permits or decrease the number of applicants. Those options listed do neither.

Exactly.   Those proposals are complete bull $@!* .  If we assume permit levels are managed biologically, then the only way to increase odds is to decrease applicants.  I believe there are many ways precious revenue could be maintained even if we had alternatives that reduce applicants/increase odds.  I think it is very disingenuous for wdfw to only propose these alternatives...I'm not necessarily in favor of any change...but if I were I think real alternatives to increase odds should be included.

[JimmyHoffa]

How many days of general season would you guys be willing to trade for how many additional permits?  I don't see WDFW doing anything that would raise carrying capacity of the GMUs or delivering a sharp blow to team predator; so about the only thing that jumps out imo to better draw odds is increasing number of permits.  I would think that the only way given current trends would be to trade days of the season for that tag.

[CarbonHunter]

How many days of general season would you guys be willing to trade for how many additional permits? 

Tough to give up days when it takes sometimes 10-15 years to draw a halfway decent permit. But if the state could guarantee a better hunting experience more often I would entertain any ideas.

[bobcat]

Jimmy, that's exactly my thoughts as well. To increase draw odds, the number of permits would need to increase, and in order to do that, the general season harvest would need to be reduced.

The only other option that is fair, and that really would help (IMO), would be a 1 or 2 year waiting period after drawing a permit. However, that's not even on the list of options being considered. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Jimmy, that's exactly my thoughts as well. To increase draw odds, the number of permits would need to increase, and in order to do that, the general season harvest would need to be reduced.

The only other option that is fair, and that really would help (IMO), would be a 1 or 2 year waiting period after drawing a permit. However, that's not even on the list if options being considered. 

yeah, I was looking at the harvest reports at numbers.  A GMU called GMU X had 24 bulls taken in 2013 in mod rifle general season.  It was a 12 day season, so works out to 2 bulls/day.  If it was an 11 day season, then figure on 22 bulls in general and 2 in special permit.  But permit figure on 50% harvest so you could get 4 additional permits.  GMU X currently only has 2 permits, so it would raise the number to 6.  I would think that would help draw odds assuming a large number of applicants didn't shift over to that GMU.  The bad thing is permit hunts are only 10 days in that area while general season is 12.  After day 9, the end of the second weekend, I would say 90% of hunters have gone home leaving that area nice and quiet.  So, not sure I'd want to trade for more permits anyways.

[returnofsid]

Remember, Spokane's Open House meeting is today! http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/

[CarbonHunter]

I think in order to improve the odds of drawing the state would need to make more drastic changes to the system than they are willing to make. Short of shutting down entire gmu's to general season hunting and allowing the herd to increase there is simply not going to be the increase in permit quotas that would create better odds of drawing. If you look at the central wa quality mule deer permits there has been a steady decline in the number available over the past few years but now that hunters have the ability to put in for buck, doe and second deer without losing their quality points, it's has become more difficult to draw those tags.

Perhaps limiting people to only being able to draw in one category per year might help spread the tags out to more hunters.

Those of us choosing to attend the meetings should really  make an attempt to try and get the state to do more on this subject.

[vandeman17]

I am actually a bit torn on the idea of giving a certain amount of tags to people with over 10, 15, 20 points or whatever. I know they already have better odds by having more points but after a few years, I think it would actually give the lower point holders better odds because it would get these high point holders out of the picture and back to a more level playing field. The guys with mid single digits points are constantly fighting against guys with double digit points. If you split it so if there were 4 tags available and 2 went to 10+ point holders and 2 went to less then 10 point holders I would think your odds would still be better, even with less tags available. All it would take is a few 15-20 point holders being gone to help offset things, at least I would think so... 

I agree more with the idea of only being able to apply for certain tags each year and not just throwing your name into every hat. How that would be done would be complex but as long as you could still purchase ghost points for those that you can't actually apply for then wdfw would still get their money and each category overall SHOULD have better odds...