washington deer tag choose ONE

[haus]

Like huntingphool said when it goes to permit only those who were willing to sacrifice nothing will be bitching the most. Something will change in this state whether we like it or not. Hopefully for the better

It will go permit only because we'll be fighting over bread crumbs of access at the rate things are going. Just since the mid 90s we've lost so much access and our food has lost even more habitat while dealing with a higher density of predators in their remaining habitat.

Your proposal does nothing to address the two core issues that are a threat to every animal species that we are allowed to harvest.

[Karl Blanchard]

I read an article awhile back that said CO has the most unhealthy deer herd of all the western states.  And even with the restrictions that they have there deer numbers continue to fall.
WY has very few late hunts are there numbers continue to fall.
I am not aware of any tags that are OTC in NV.  And with there restrictions deer numbers continue to fall.
I don't pay attention to OR but I do know there deer numbers continue to fall.

Restricting hunting has little effect on Mule deer numbers across the west.
[/quote]  Wyoming's herds are taking a beating due in large part to loss of habitat.

Colorado's numbers will always look bad when compared to the glory days of the 80's but numbers are up in recent years.  I hunt "the worst unit in the state" and we see lots of bucks and even manage to hang a few high 170 to low 180 deer in camp.

Oregon has the same predator issues we have here in Washington.

Point is, Mule deer need a little help.  We can do nothing, or we can attempt to give them a helping hand.  Maybe what other states are doing isn't having a big effect (agree to disagree) but at least they are being proactive, and residents are still filling their freezer every year.

[longwalker]

 Haus, Let me guess , timber company's and wolves. What do you think will change faster the way we manage the deer or the way we manage the timber company's ( lots of lobbyist ) or wolves ( even more lobbyist) I agree there's more to it but at least trying to start to manage for quality is better than bitching about it online

[haus]

Haus, Let me guess , timber company's and wolves. What do you think will change faster the way we manage the deer or the way we manage the timber company's ( lots of lobbyist ) or wolves ( even more lobbyist) I agree there's more to it but at least trying to start to manage for quality is better than bitching about it online

wolves and timber companies? I'm referring to our general outward population growth that has sucked up thousands of acres of habitat and to a lesser extent overall predator densities, not just our new cuddly puppy.

[Bigshooter]

I read an article awhile back that said CO has the most unhealthy deer herd of all the western states.  And even with the restrictions that they have there deer numbers continue to fall.
WY has very few late hunts are there numbers continue to fall.
I am not aware of any tags that are OTC in NV.  And with there restrictions deer numbers continue to fall.
I don't pay attention to OR but I do know there deer numbers continue to fall.

Restricting hunting has little effect on Mule deer numbers across the west.

  Wyoming's herds are taking a beating due in large part to loss of habitat.

Colorado's numbers will always look bad when compared to the glory days of the 80's but numbers are up in recent years.  I hunt "the worst unit in the state" and we see lots of bucks and even manage to hang a few high 170 to low 180 deer in camp.

Oregon has the same predator issues we have here in Washington.

Point is, Mule deer need a little help.  We can do nothing, or we can attempt to give them a helping hand.  Maybe what other states are doing isn't having a big effect (agree to disagree) but at least they are being proactive, and residents are still filling their freezer every year.
[/quote]

I agree that habitat loss is a lot of WY problems and cutting tags numbers have not helped.

The 80's for colorado are a shadow of what they were in the 60's.  The article I read about CO having an unhealthy deer herd had to do with to many bucks in the population and how to many bucks hurt the population by out competing fawns for food.  The size of deer killed doesn't mean that you have a healthy and growing herd.

I agree mule deer need help.  But one thing that I believe has been proven over and over again is that cutting buck tag numbers doesn't grow herds, it only grows lager bucks.  And apparently that isn't as good as we all want it to be for herds.

[bobdog86]

I have been hunting with the group of guys (family and friends) with for 30+ years. Due to scheduling hurdles each year-- kid sports, health, travel for business in order for us to continue our traditions going we sometimes will hunt together in different gmu's so we can be together, for instance SE for muley's and then late season in NE.  At least at some point during the season we'll all get to be together.  At this stage of he game for me and my family I'm not interested in limiting opportunities since it may limit out time together.  Besides, it's not a perfect situation, doubt one exist here……too many special interest groups, populations..

[Gringo31]

Tell me if this is an oversimplification....


Your problem seems to be that people hunt one area of the state, then have the opportunity to hunt another area later.    You feel this needs to stop in the name of quality.


(Not suggesting this, just trying to understand better)....If the state set seasons as typed below,  would that also solve the problem you see?

Statewide Seasons:
Archery- Sept 1-25
Muzzle-  Sept 26-Oct 4th
Mod -  Oct 10-18th
Late seasons can be added here but they have to be the same east and west to open gmu's.

Etc, etc.  IF the set a season for the entire state without exceptions, people wouldn't be able to hunt one area and then be able to hunt another area later.  By your argument, this would reduce pressure and increase quality.

Tell me what I don't understand.

I think that people who go to an area that is flooded with poor success, continue to move to find new ground.  Eventually, it kind of balances out. 

You said..

Pretty sure I'd be limiting myself too???

At least you agree that your idea is limiting everyone.  I believe strongly that limiting hunters isn't the fix to the problem.  Truly managing our GAME populations should be.  It seems that other ideas that you might come up with to "help" would be to have to pick high buck or general or force us to pick early or late season, east or west.  All of these ideas I'm not in favor of and I pretty much only hunt one gmu.

[NOCK NOCK]

Haus, Let me guess , timber company's and wolves. What do you think will change faster the way we manage the deer or the way we manage the timber company's ( lots of lobbyist ) or wolves ( even more lobbyist) I agree there's more to it but at least trying to start to manage for quality is better than bitching about it online

wolves and timber companies? I'm referring to our general outward population growth that has sucked up thousands of acres of habitat and to a lesser extent overall predator densities, not just our new cuddly puppy.

  Habitat loss is the #1 reason herds decline. WA has too darn many people and just keeps getting more. Civilization continues to creep into the hills taking up prime habitat.

As an example: The FS is proposing to turn the upper#2 Canyon area near Wenatchee into a mountain bike park. There is already a huge area for this called the Foothills Trail System, but the greenies want more.  They have lots of $$ and will get this done.  More prime habitat lost so the MB'ers have more paces to ride. 

[JimmyHoffa]

Maybe it's a mule deer thing to not do so well in the semi-developed areas where habitat is 'lost', but seems it really boosts the blacktail--San Juans and parts of the Olympic/Kitsap Pens come to mind.  Some really high deer densities by creating garden buffets and being relatively predator free.  The loss mostly has been access for hunters for these new herds.

[longwalker]

Gringo, a lot going on in your post but I think what your asking is why I'd want this. It's simple really, dispersed hunting pressure. No loss of seasons, no secrete motive that some how this will all benefit me and me alone since I would somehow be able to take advantage of something  the other hundred of thousands couldn't ( that's my favorite replys so far " you just want this to make your hunting better" pretty intelligent reply)

No for me it's mathematics. If a guy say, like me. Buys a rifle tag and hunts the high hunt, east side gen and late buck west that puts me as part of hunting pressure for all those hunts. Now if I have to choose one by my calculations ( please check my math ) that takes the hunting pressure I apply to two of those hunts away, leaving more room for the guy that chose one of those two I did not. Now multiply by X. No matter how you cut it this WOULD reduce pressure a cross the board for every season . Some more than others but regaurdless all would be affected.

[NOCK NOCK]

Gringo, a lot going on in your post but I think what your asking is why I'd want this. It's simple really, dispersed hunting pressure. No loss of seasons, no secrete motive that some how this will all benefit me and me alone since I would somehow be able to take advantage of something  the other hundred of thousands couldn't ( that's my favorite replys so far " you just want this to make your hunting better" pretty intelligent reply)

No for me it's mathematics. If a guy say, like me. Buys a rifle tag and hunts the high hunt, east side gen and late buck west that puts me as part of hunting pressure for all those hunts. Now if I have to choose one by my calculations ( please check my math ) that takes the hunting pressure I apply to two of those hunts away, leaving more room for the guy that chose one of those two I did not. Now multiply by X. No matter how you cut it this WOULD reduce pressure a cross the board for every season . Some more than others but regardless all would be affected.

I am not for, or against your idea. But I do not get your reasoning/math.
Say there are 1000 hunters,  In a status quo year 333 hunt unit 651,  333 hunt unit 247, and 334 hunt unit 121,= even pressure in all 3 units.

Now say:  50 hunt in 651, 100 hunt in 121, and 850 hunt in 247. If you cut it this way it would reduce pressure in two units, but drastically increase pressure in the last one.   I don't get it

[Gringo31]

Longwalker,
Idaho doesn't require you to pick a weapon.  You hunt the season for that weapon.

Would Idaho following Washington's example having to pick a weapon increase opportunity or quality of their hunts?

I disagree that the more you fragment our options, the better it is for us.  If you have to pick a weapon, for a specific gmu that seems .... limiting.

I don't think it would change the basic math that X amount of hunters are after X amount of deer and the general success rate.   

[TommyH]

With the user name of "long walker" I thought you may have allready knew how to deal with high hunting pressure....

Usually when I feel an area has been pressured by other hunters I go for a "long walk" or go somewhere else.

Maybe your trying to improve road hunting     

[longwalker]

With the user name of "long walker" I thought you may have allready knew how to deal with high hunting pressure....

Usually when I feel an area has been pressured by other hunters I go for a "long walk" or go somewhere else.

Maybe your trying to improve road hunting     

Yeah that's it. You got me

[longwalker]

Gringo, just for arguments sake here all made up numbers so don't torch me . Take a look at the poll . Now take the 46% of hunters not hunting east side mule deer. Out of that 46% let's say put half of those back into the pool of east side mule deer hunters. Uping the number of 54% of hunters in those gmu's to 77% ( ish, I realize it's not the exact conversion ) so let's say 65-70% of hunters there. More pressure right?