Game Mgmt. Council Meeting Notes - 2015-17 season proposals, baiting etc.

[Bob33]

"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"

If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change".   

So, I guess we don't know what that definition is "highest point holders" in most states means max points, such as Wyoming and I believe Arizona.

That's right. Once they do, it will be interesting to see how it affects draw odds both for those with "highest points", and the others. in 2013 there were 5 "any moose" applications with 20 points, which was the most any application had. There were 7 applications with 19 points. Those with 20 and 19 points would all draw within two years if 25% of the tags went to those with the most points. However, there were 382 with 18 points. In two years they would be in the "most points" category. Obviously they cannot all draw. The year after they would be joined by the 238 with 17 points, and so forth. Their draw odds would improve, but by how much? At the other end of the spectrum, how many new hunters would want to join the application game when draw odds took another hit for those just starting out? In 2013 there were nearly 8000 moose applications with four points or less, and three of them drew. Your odds of winning the lottery and going to BC to hunt moose are probably better.

In my opinion, it's a shell game. The only way to significantly improve draw odds is to manage for more wildlife.

[ballpark]

So if I follow what you are saying about Modern Deer starting the first Saturday after the 10th, then Modern will open on 17 Oct, correct?   

[idahohuntr]

"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"

If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change".   

When I pointed out the origninal 10pt cutoff and the stats Bob posted...that is when Dave Ware said they are re-evaluating the cutoff "point".  I think they realized 10+ pts already get the majority of the tags...Dave was clear that they want to set the limit where it makes an appreciable difference to draw odds.  To me, this means that you basically have to set it so that the 25% of tags are given to the max point holders (or something close).

If we look at "any moose" tags as an example...there are 1504 people who had 15+ points in 2013.  There are 82 any moose permits.  If we reserved 25% of them for 15+ point holders (21 permits) it would take 72 years for all of the 15+ point holders to get a tag under this new system designed to appease the high point holders.  If we set the cutoff at 19 points, then the 12 applicants with those 19 or more points would be guaranteed a tag the following year.  I don't believe it is appropriate that high point holders should be entitled to tags...WDFW says they get a lot of feedback about hunters with high point totals wanting improved draw odds...BS...all levels of point holders want improved draw odds!  If WDFW implements this, it will only result in substantial point creep and more complaints about absurdly low draw odds.  Like all ponzi schemes...a few in at the base level could stand to do quite well though.

If WDFW's objective is to improve draw odds the easiest thing they could do is find ways to reduce applicants.  I personally beleive we could come up with revenue neutral options and still improve draw odds.  I'm starting to think maybe there are a few upcoming WDFW retirees who have not drawn their moose/sheep/quality elk etc tags yet...time to make a few changes so they have something to do in retirement     

[idahohuntr]

In my opinion, it's a shell game. The only way to significantly improve draw odds is to manage for more wildlife.

Although, I think the most significant thing to improve draw odds would be to take steps to reduce applicants.  Difficult to envision a 20% increase in say sheep tags, but I could come up with a few ideas that would cut OIL applications by 80 or 90%. 

[huntnphool]

Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders. The only good way to increase draw odds for anyone is to increase the number of available tags and other than the few listed by the OP that is not going to happen.

Here is the data based on 2013 OIL tags. The percentages are the number of tags that went to individuals with the specified number of points or more.

For example, 75% of the "any moose" tags when to applications with 10 or more points. If "highest point holders" is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing.

Pts   Moose   Goat   Sheep
20   0%   0%   0%
19   0%   0%   0%
18   13%   8%   15%
17   17%   15%   31%
16   26%   15%   38%
15   37%   23%   42%
14   45%   38%   50%
13   57%   38%   50%
12   62%   54%   58%
11   70%   69%   73%
10   75%   69%   81%

 If it changes nothing then why elicit the change?

[pd]

Hats off to you Idahohnter for your summery of the meeting you attend. I wish every member that attneded WDFW meeting reported back like you do. 

I have one question.
Was allowing 9mm & up semiauto hand guns for hunting in restricted areas? Please explain.

I'm not super familiar with it, but right now the rules basically only allow revolvers to be used in the firearm restricted areas over in Western Washington during a modern firearm season (I believe these areas are mostly around urban places?)...anyways, WDFW felt that there was no reason a semi-auto handgun couldn't be allowed as well, thus the change.  Only effects firearm restricted areas.

All correct.  Here is the issue: In many areas of western Washington the general rifle season has a firearms limitation, in that centerfire rifles are banned.  This means that you can only use shotguns, muzzleloaders, archery equipment to hunt in those areas.  As the others point out, for some crazy reason, the regulations also allow handguns, but specify that the handgun must be a revolver.  This is nuts, of course: The deer don't know if they have been shot with a semi-auto handgun or a revolver handgun.  I believe the rationale was that pistols usually have a high magazine capacity, but I have never been able to get a clear answer on this.  In any case, many of us have been pushing for a change to the regulation, to eliminate the reference to "revolvers" and simply allow any handgun.  It seems WDFW will require 9mm and larger caliber, which is fine (22LR is already banned).  This is a sensible decision, and I am happy to see it finally come.

[pd]

Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.

1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all?  What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago?  Is there some special interest group pushing it?  I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban.  You were at the meeting, what was your impression?

2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs?  That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?

Thanks for the notes, very helpful.

[idahohuntr]

Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.

1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all?  What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago?  Is there some special interest group pushing it?  I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban.  You were at the meeting, what was your impression?

2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs?  That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?

Thanks for the notes, very helpful.

1. As wingshooter mentioned, it was brought up in the scoping for the upcoming Game Management Plan.  The issue is being raised by hunters who do not believe baiting is ethical.  Its not a group of anti-hunters or anything like that.  Personally, I think a whole bunch of hunters opposed to baiting in general would be satisfied if some common sense rules on bait location, timing, and amount were imposed...I think it is a solution that could leave the most people happy 

2. No discussion on a general spring season whatsoever.  They mentioned the doubling of permits in NE Wa near the very end of the meeting as it was inadvertently left out.

[EyeTooth]

Thank you idahohuntr for bringing us this meeting info.
You’re right. The people having to make these decisions need to hear in calm voices, the clear details about all of the issues.
Here’s what I’ll say. It only covers the permit/tag issue, and will only be said on here. I really enjoy reading everyone’s comments and I’m not trying to be controversial. Just would like to remind everyone, including those from the DFW on here that some of us have longer memories about some things than others think we do. I guess that doesn’t matter any way. We’re still ignored. I’m not selecting copies of peoples posts based on who they are. I like what all of you have to say, and appreciate what you do! These are just the ones that pertain to what my personal experience is with this issue. My comments aren’t meant to be negative. They’re to point out why to not allow this particular change.
Because of this:                                                                                                                                                           
“Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders.”                                                                                                                                                                           
I kind of want to say:                                                                                                                                                     
Here we go again with the DFW and commission making changes based on what some of the people with the most points (high point holders) want. Similar to setting up all of the sub-categories for elk and deer just because some of the people with the most points (high point holders) were complaining that they thought it wasn’t fair that they couldn’t draw a cow permit without having to use their points like everyone else. This took and still does take opportunities away from and meat off the tables of people who never got in the way of the people with the most points (high point holders), or their chances of drawing a quality permit.

And also, because of this:                                                                                                                                             
"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"

And this: If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change".
 
If I was one of the people involved in making the decision, I would have to say:                                                                                                                                                         
If it’s true that this changes nothing, then why waste time on it?                                                                 
Why continue to give into these complaints (which encourage more complaining), from a minority of applicants, in this case (high point holders) when the rest of us pay for the same opportunities as well?  Why not tell the people who are doing the complaining that they need to stop thinking only about themselves. When they call or write asking for special treatment tell them NO. Some people need to hear this word more often, and when they finally understand they will stop calling and complaining. If they don’t, tell them you have to hang up now because you have more important work to do, because you do.
When is the DFW and the Commission going to stick up for the average guy as far as points are concerned? Please don't tell me that the average guy needs to attend more meetings for this to happen. WDFW is paid to represent all of us. They should know right from wrong without someone having to be there to remind them. I've been to meetings and talk with WDFW many times. I've found "it's not who you know, but who I know in many cases". Quite frustrating!   
Why did I write this? Sorry. I guess we all have things that seem important to us. I’ll go back into the shadows again. Thanks again idahohuntr!

[bobcat]

Great post Eyetooth! I agree 100%!

[huntnphool]

Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.

1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all?  What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago?  Is there some special interest group pushing it?  I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban.  You were at the meeting, what was your impression?

2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs?  That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?

Thanks for the notes, very helpful.

1.  Personally, I think a whole bunch of hunters opposed to baiting in general would be satisfied if some common sense rules on bait location, timing, and amount were imposed...I think it is a solution that could leave the most people happy 

 Anything other than a complete ban will leave a window open for some to abuse, even with a complete ban there will be those that ignore it.

 If the issue truly is "location, timing and amount" and WDFW has a genuine interest in pleasing hunters, then they should impose a full ban and secretly not impose it. A full ban will likely keep those abusing the rule with dump truck loads of bait from going that far overboard, while at the same time WDFW will know that the occasional tree stand guy will pack in a bag of corn or alfalfa bail, which would be the alternative anyway if they were to forgo the "all out ban" and limit amounts.

 Eyetooth, well said. The last GMAC meeting had a old guy pushing real hard for this 25% preferential treatment, whining that he will likely not draw a sheep tag before he dies and that's just not fair, to paraphrase. As you said, only interested in his own chances and obviously couldn't care less about the rest of the hunting community.

 Its squeaky wheels like this that give me such a bad taste about these "interest groups". Its whitehouse politics in a smaller form and seldom speaks for the majority of this states hunters.

  Idaho hunter, this is not a inditement on you, I know there are a few that actually speak up for the rest of us as a whole and are not there purely out of self interest.

[winshooter88]

Just to clarify a little on the idea of giving 25% of the tags to the high point holders, (talked about ten points and then about fifteen points as the cut off) these same high point holders will still be eligible to be drawn for the remaining 75% of the tags that are not reserved for the high point holders. Just to add to the conversation.

[bearpaw]

Bob33 had it right, the best way to improve odds of drawing a tag is to increase the herd numbers to increase the number of tags available.

As far as systems, I actually like Idaho's method the best, no points, you can only apply for one specie, you pay upfront money to apply and the tags are pricier so not as many people apply.

As far as point systems, I like Utah's the best, but I can see why it is hard to change a system mid-stream, everyone already has a mindset on the current system. The biggest problem is that we have thousands of hunters wanting to draw a handful of tags. There simply is no way that everyone can be a winner. 

[huntnnw]

Cougar
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY

They were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines".  A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines.  Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...

I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.

what a effing scam..dbl the permits how about OTC!!!!!! all about the dollar! there is no reason why this shouldnt be open and not just NE WA but the whole state!! We have way to many bears

[bearpaw]

Cougar
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY

They were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines".  A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines.  Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...

I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.

what a effing scam..dbl the permits how about OTC!!!!!! all about the dollar! there is no reason why this shouldnt be open and not just NE WA but the whole state!! We have way to many bears

I agree, there should be an open statewide spring season. WA has way too many bear and that might bring numbers down a little.

Same with cougar, there should be an open statewide season with much higher or no harvest guidelines!