washington deer tag choose ONE

[Gringo31]

It seems that every idea WDFW has come up with, the sales pitch is increasing opportunity.  This seems to dramatically decrease opportunity. 

Interesting link of deer harvest by state. 

http://www.deerfriendly.com/deer-management-strategy-and-hunter-success-by-state


I don't know how telling people they only get to hunt this area in our state is a good thing.  Is "good" hunting better than no hunting?  The amount of money paid to hunt 11 days a year is tough as it is.

[bobcat]

The west side of the state is now being managed by the timber companies. So I don't think it will make much difference to limit us to only east or west. If I pay $300 to hunt blacktails on private land, I'm not going to spend any time or money hunting the east side of the state. Same thing is true if I don't purchase an access pass from a timber company- I'll be hunting only public lands on the east side of the state.

[Colville]

This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system.  Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement.  It completely skips the first step in problem solving.

What's the problem?  DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved.  "Quality" of animal is not such a problem.  It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity.  They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events:  (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.

The  problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently.  That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years.  The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime.  It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion. 

[bearpaw]

I think he defined what he considers the problem in his 2nd paragraph:

this system if you will, would increase quality across the board almost instantly for every deer hunter in the state. it would also dramatically increase draw odds. some more than others but it would certainly affect the numbers no matter what your opinion is, that's just math.

I don't think the majority of hunters want the system changed much, but I do like to see this kind of discussion, it's certainly very relevant discussion to be having about deer hunting in WA.

[JBar]

As Bobcat said, Westside timber companies will have a huge impact on dispersement. I'm not going to choose Westside based on "if" I get one of the limited qty a access permits. Timber companies are already pushing traditional Westside guys to the east where more public land is available. Having to choose would IMO put even more pressure on the east. Go to draw only and now the state loses revenue but I bet Idaho, Oregon and Montana would love it if we did.

[longwalker]

Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity

 The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.

I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal

 You are assuming everyone wants to hunt whitetail.

Nope just using an example. Your never going to get the general late season you want in the methow no matter what changes are proposed. This would at the least make your draw odds better

[Chesapeake]

I agree with Colville. What is the problem statement?

Aside from that, how would you split the state and where would you draw the line? As I see it the Westside, if using the elk line, doesn't contain an actual "Quality" hunt. Not one I'd burn "quality" points on, and if you look at the application statistics you'd see that most folks agree with that.

I've never even applied for a west side hunt in any category before. And I live and primarily hunt on the west side.

So if you did split the state, how many folks would actually choose west side?

If you made me choose, I'd hunt the East side.



 

[Gringo31]

Interesting that the link I provided has Idaho, MT, OR all trying to increase their deer populations and WA's goal is to stabilize it.

I believe a reduction in hunting won't change deer populations much.  I don't feel we are at our carrying capacity as a state (generally speaking).  All the questions as to why.....I don't feel it is due to hunting.  IF it was, those areas are fairly easily managed.

The problem is that predators and poachers (same thing) destroy many of these resources that you are trying to protect with the draw system.

[CoryTDF]

This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system.  Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement.  It completely skips the first step in problem solving.

What's the problem?  DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved.  "Quality" of animal is not such a problem.  It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity.  They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events:  (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.


The  problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently.  That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years.  The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime.  It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.

Very well said and valid. People idea of "Quality" and "Trophy" very drastically. I for one like to eat deer. That is ultimately the main reason I hunt. Sure I try to kill a nice buck but in the end it's about feeding the family delicious venison. I also love to hunt and have the opportunity to hunt. If you look at the voting that has been done thus far our mule deer population will take a major hit. What ramifications could follow that? Whitetail taking over mule deer areas and our mule deer populations drastically declining?? From a biological standpoint I don’t see this, the OP's, argument holding water. Having a bigger buck does not necessarily mean that you will have a healthy herd.

[JimmyHoffa]

Wouldn't have to be a hunter control method to improve quality or quantity either...but that always seems the easiest.  Log (clear cut or thin a lot of forest circus land) and burn, not spray the current log lands.  Blacktails used to be pretty thick even with more hunters spending more time hunting and covering a lot more territory.
I would guess one of the first things for your idea would be to get rid of multi-season deer tags?

[Gringo31]

Just because....I thought I'd add this.



Statewide Deer Harvest Statistics
for the 2014 Hunting Season

Weapon Type   General     Permit      Total       Antlered   Antlerless   Hunters  Success
Archery           5,110      157             5,267     2,822     2,445       19,658      26.8%
Modern           24,989     2,580       27,569     23,684     3,885       92,775       29.7%
Muzzleloader   2,117      263           2,380      1,599       781         8,055      29.5%
Statewide Total  32,216  3,000        35,216      28,105   7,11        120,488   29.2%
 

[bearpaw]

Interesting that the link I provided has Idaho, MT, OR all trying to increase their deer populations and WA's goal is to stabilize it.

I believe a reduction in hunting won't change deer populations much.  I don't feel we are at our carrying capacity as a state (generally speaking).  All the questions as to why.....I don't feel it is due to hunting.  IF it was, those areas are fairly easily managed.

The problem is that predators and poachers (same thing) destroy many of these resources that you are trying to protect with the draw system.

I couldn't agree more! 

[longwalker]

This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system.  Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement.  It completely skips the first step in problem solving.

What's the problem?  DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved.  "Quality" of animal is not such a problem.  It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity.  They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events:  (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.


The  problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently.  That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years.  The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime.  It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.

Very well said and valid. People idea of "Quality" and "Trophy" very drastically. I for one like to eat deer. That is ultimately the main reason I hunt. Sure I try to kill a nice buck but in the end it's about feeding the family delicious venison. I also love to hunt and have the opportunity to hunt. If you look at the voting that has been done thus far our mule deer population will take a major hit. What ramifications could follow that? Whitetail taking over mule deer areas and our mule deer populations drastically declining?? From a biological standpoint I don’t see this, the OP's, argument holding water. Having a bigger buck does not necessarily mean that you will have a healthy herd.

I look at the poll a little differently . I'd say all those guys would be hunting mule deer anyway and the guys that choose the other tags may have also been hunting mule deer but now will not be. So the mule deer would in theory take lease of a"hit"

[longwalker]

I see where you are going and don't disagree with your line of reasoning. However, I can't vote until I'm forced to make a choice.




if you read my original post this is a theoretical situation that i was asking for a choice as if it was already in place. for purposes of seeing what hunter distribution "could" be

[magnumb]

There are no statistics anywhere, given by anyone, that would convince me that their #'s are correct in regards to blacktail populations.  Given the terrain, that 99% of all area's that lead to deer access are gated and that those that aren't are only open to those paying high permiting prices.....simply choosing the westside to hunt would be like only opening one small pond on opening trout day to the entire westside population of anglers.

I see it happening now and have for the past 2 decades.  Of the one or two parcels of state land open in our county to deer hunting and vehicle access, the entire deer season in those very few area's looks like the Indy 500.  So really.....how is anyone to truly know what the other 95% of the westside holds in terms of deer populations?   

The westside, by virtue of it's population, has a ton of hunters.  Lets say that we had to choose a 'side' with no other option but to hunt that one 'side'.  Outside of the 'pay for' option and the extremely limited access for hunters to hunt the westside, my guess is that the vast majority of deer hunters would opt to go eastside (more overall area, mulie or whitetail dedicated hunters, less limited access by vehicle or otherwise).  Soooooo....the eastside herds get slammed and/or if a system of 'draw only' exists on either 'side', that vastly larger # of hunters choosing the eastside will be sitting at home hoping that the next year they get drawn if not one of the very few (by comparison) to be drawn.

It would be tough to argue that blacktail are a particular species of deer that is easy to hunt and given the terrain, rainy/ugly weather conditions and severely limited access, how many westside hunters will choose the westside over the much more attractive eastside.

There certainly needs to be some changes and as was stated earlier, we need to define 'the' #1 problem and work from there.  I'm hearing and believe that hunter populations in many, if not most area's, is a factor that leads to less than memorable hunting excursions.  Not so much the harvest factor, but the 'enjoyment of the overall hunt' factor.  The Dept. has failed to help us to gain access to huge area's of deer habitat for decades and every year the same gates remain closed and additional gates are closing as well.  Most closed gates offer access to walk-ins, horses, bikes and so forth.  We all know that on the westside, the first reasonable clear-cut is more than a 1/2 days drag from those closed gates......or alot further.  So the Dept. saying, "well, you can hunt there, you just can't drive in" is just an excuse for not having to bargain with the timber companies on our behalf and a weak attempt at a guilt trip on us as a whole. 

I still very much enjoy hiking, still hunting, stalking and working hard each year for my deer and/or elk.  But I am also not quite as mobile as I once was, had 3 spinal and one neck fusion, 2 heart procedures and I'm just plain.......older.  Sure, I might qualify for a 'disabled' qualification for hunting purposes, but who doesn't have physical issues that hunts and is older than 40......? 

These timber companies and large land owners that post 'No Vehicle Access' but allow entry for 'recreational purposes' get a tax break for offering the 'recreational' part of their conditions for entry.  These are tax breaks that both the timber companies and large land owners and more importantly, the Dept. knows have not enhanced our hunting opportunities and accessible hunting area's one bit!

If the problem is insufficient access to the game animals that only our tags and licenses go towards enhancing and protecting which also then naturally allows for better and safer disbursement of hunting pressure (on both 'sides), the Dept. needs to do what we pay them to do and what we expect them to do.  They need to lobby for more hunting access for us.....those that have entrusted them to work diligently to enhance our hunting, fishing and overall recreating activities while paying their salaries to do so.  If not advocacting for us through dialogue directly with the timber companies and large land owners, then the Dept. should persistently lobby our legislators who can then review the overall conditions and stipulations regarding the tax break they receive for simply stating, 'For Recreation Use' on their signs.

I believe that if we could get the Dept. to advocate for us as a whole in this regard, much, if not most of these issues, could more easily be resolved or wouldn't be issues at all.  That some area's have been opened up to hunting that were not available before, pales by comparison to those lands lost through the use of gates and other negotiable area closures.  That unfortunate and completely avoidable ratio will not soon be diminished unless the Dept. becomes a dedicated and adamantly vocal advocate for us and soon.  If not and the status quo remains as it has for decades, then as sure as rain, our opportunities will continue to diminish and further threads like this will become even more common place.