WDFW seeks comments: 2015-17 hunting season proposals

[winshooter88]

They aren't going to raise the number of permits, they will divide the current permits, so there will be less chance for people with less points to draw permits. No where in the information does it say they will increase the number of permits overall.
And there are more people with 10+ points then some folks realize, they aren't going to go away very quickly if at all with any of the proposed changes. If they change from a bonus points system to a preference points system which is kind of what the proposed changes will do then to be fair they should scrap the entire current system and start over, and that includes starting over points wise.

[bobcat]

I don't think anyone was saying that they were going to raise the number of permits. All I was saying is that in order for drawing odds to be better, there would somehow need to be more permits. That could be done, at the extreme, by doing away with all general seasons. That still may not help, all that would do is increase the demand. The best thing to do, IMO, if they want to stay with the current system, is simply a waiting period for those who draw permits. Let them sit out for the next year, two years, or maybe even three years. That would eliminate the issue with people getting lucky and drawing premium hunts two years in a row, which honestly I don't believe happens often.

What's odd to me is where does this magical "10" point number come from? So it's as if somehow a person with 10 points is in a higher class than those with 9 points or less? Weird. All these proposals would do is complicate an already over-complicated system. They screwed it up big time back in 2009 when they added the additional categories, and claimed at that time that it would improve draw odds. We all knew that wouldn't be the case, and it's been proven now that draw odds only got worse with the new system. Now they COULD go back to a little closer to how it used to be, and improve odds, though it probably really wouldn't help by a lot. But what they could do is only allow a person to apply in one category per species. But we know that won't happen, because it would mean a loss in revenue. The waiting period idea would also mean a loss in revenue, and that's probably the reason why it's not one of the proposals.

[idahohuntr]

I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud.    The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders?  Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags). 

I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.

If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants.  If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants?  We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above

There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face.  I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds.  I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. 

[Curly]

 

[jasnt]

I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud.    The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders?  Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags). 

I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.

If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants.  If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants?  We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above

There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face.  I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds.  I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. 

For once I agree with you on something. 

[jasnt]

I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud.    The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders?  Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags). 

I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.

If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants.  If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants?  We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above

There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face.  I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds.  I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. 

For once I agree with you on something. 

[bobcat]

Actually, there is a way they could increase permits and help to increase odds, although in the overall scheme of things it probably wouldn't change things much. What we need is just a few permits added for units that currently don't have any. Such as here on the west side, why can't there be late season permits for blacktail deer in every unit, rather than just a few? It could be just five permits for a particular unit, but it would help to spread applicants around a little more. I'm sure there are many other examples of permits that could be added that wouldn't have any significant affect on the resource. Spring bear is another example. Almost every GMU in the state could afford to have at least a few spring bear permits. Why do they only offer these permits in a few units?

[Ridgerunner]

I don't like the idea with the points at all.  That sounds a lot like a move to a true preference point system which would be disaster in my mind.  Hopefully someone that goes this week can get some clarification, I'm planning on going next week in Tacoma. 

[CarbonHunter]

I think the simplest thing that could be done is let everyone continue to put if for all of the categories that they want but make it so they can only keep one tag if they draw multiple tags. The state could draw alternates for every permit (just like they do for OIL tags) and after the hunter decides which tag he wants. The returned tags can be given to the alternates that were drawn during the draw.

This doesn't mean it will be easier for anyone to draw a high demand tag but it would spread the tags out to more hunters in the state.

Or at the very least the state could make it an option for hunters who draw multiple tags to return a tag and get their points back. After all even if you draw 2 elk tags you can still only shoot 1 elk.

[Dry creek]

we can have 50% better odds if we  can only put in for deer and elk or oil tags and no ghost points?

[BOWHUNTER45]

I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud.    The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders?  Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags). 

I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.

If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants.  If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants?  We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above

There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face.  I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds.  I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. 

For once I agree with you on something.

Didn't you tell me that the other day ? Welcome to the dark side 

[jasnt]

Actually, there is a way they could increase permits and help to increase odds, although in the overall scheme of things it probably wouldn't change things much. What we need is just a few permits added for units that currently don't have any. Such as here on the west side, why can't there be late season permits for blacktail deer in every unit, rather than just a few? It could be just five permits for a particular unit, but it would help to spread applicants around a little more. I'm sure there are many other examples of permits that could be added that wouldn't have any significant affect on the resource. Spring bear is another example. Almost every GMU in the state could afford to have at least a few spring bear permits. Why do they only offer these permits in a few units?

Yeah like quadruple spring bear tags in the east. Few more doe tags in ne corner,

[fireweed]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php

I like the notion in this survey that timber companies must allow free access for bear "damage" permits.  What a no-brainer!  No damage permits if you don't allow state hunters on for free.

[DIYARCHERYJUNKIE]

16 Archery hunters would prefer to have a general early archery season that is more coincident with the elk breeding season and later in the month of September to better address high temperatures and private forestland fire closures. 
Background Information:

Currently, the general early archery season is 13 days long and opens the Tuesday following Labor Day.

From 2003-2009, it was a 14-day season that occurred September 8th-21st.  Before that it was September 1-14.

Category: Elk
Region(s): StatewideOpening day of early archery season was adjusted in 2009 in response to concerns that the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters was disproportionately high compared to other user groups.

Having the early archery season occur earlier has had no discernable effect on the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters.



Location: All GMUs open during early archery seasons


Alternatives

 Alternative #1: Standard season dates of September 8th–20th
 Alternative #2: A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
 Alternative #3: A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
 Alternative #4: Switching the current opening dates for early archery and early muzzleloader seasons (i.e., archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader hunters hunt in September)
 Alternative #5: No change


The bold statement seem extremely contradicting!  I like how all the survey notes end with a lame excuse before they show the alternatives.  They tell us what we told them we want and they say why we cant have it.  Then they show you the options. 

[dreamunelk]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php

I like the notion in this survey that timber companies must allow free access for bear "damage" permits.  What a no-brainer!  No damage permits if you don't allow state hunters on for free.

I don't think this has any affect on damage permits.  Just spring bear permits for hunters.  I think a lot of hunters are complaining about having to pay for access for seasons established to address damage issues.  It needs a little clarification I think.  I could be wrong.