washington deer tag choose ONE

[Gringo31]

On another note...

I don't think it really matters how you slice it up.  There are X amount of deer and X amount of hunters.  Harvest rates are 25-30%.  Pulling people out of some areas an trying to spread them out more evenly (with a little draw money coming in as well) won't alter the population of deer or the quality. 

You mentioned the high buck hunters who aren't really dedicated.  The answer isn't to just send non-dedicated hunters to another place.  Some guys just like to go on armed hikes to get away from work or the wife. 

You can shorten seasons, reduce hunters (opportunity as a whole to the state) but if only half the hunters get to hunt every year....have you increased opportunity?   Imagine that...you get either odd or even years to hunt.  Less hunters in the field, "easier" hunts?  This would only increase the harvest success rate and nothing would change.  Some would argue "I get my deer every other year".  Money to hunting would drop and "quality" of animal would remain the same.

I think all this is non-sense.  People have asked what the problem is in order to come up with a solution to that problem.  If this is the top problem with deer hunting in our state.... I'd disagree with you.

[haus]

Eroding hunter opportunity.

more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience

if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.

I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.

I'm not, the freedom of not being restricted to a specific side or a given area in general season allows for greater flexibility when such things as family needs and work schedule/locations change.

[TommyH]

Eroding hunter opportunity.

more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience

if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.

I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.

I'm not, the freedom of not being restricted to a specific side or a given area in general season allows for greater flexibility when such things as family needs and work schedule/locations change.

 

And to your thinking most hunters don't care about the betterment of hunting,     I disagree.

If there is a specific gmu that's needs restrictions on it to help the herd bounce back then fine if that is the case. Your overall blanket approach sucks.

[longwalker]

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

[longwalker]

You guys act like we would be losing hunting seasons. Just pick one and hunt it. Still gen seasons you just have to dedicate to one . I can't see how anyone could think it wouldn't make for a better quality experiance, trophy aspects aside. Some one already mentioned what a zoo the national forest on the west side late hunt looks like In certain areas. I promise a large number of those guys wee hunting east of the mountains in October

[longwalker]

Look at the poll. Those aren't more guys hunting east side mule deer it's the same guys that already are. What's being taken out is the other tags being checked by guys that hunt both , like me. It would be better for all, eastern mule deer too

[longwalker]

Just think about 46% less applicants for a mule deer tag....

[Bigshooter]

Eroding hunter opportunity.

more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience

if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.

I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.

That's not perception.  That's reality.  Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season.  Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails.  And I have done just this a few times.

[Bigshooter]

I'm with BLRman....

Let's work to make it truly better.....not just suck less. 

 

Too many people are looking at the issues of this state through the lense of "whats best for ME"  or "whats most convienent for ME".  The way I look at it is,  in the big picture, I really don't care about this season, or next season, I care about 20 season's down the road, when my kids are young adults.  Will I be able to hunt with them as I did my dad and grandpa?  Will there be enough mule deer then to sustain a season for them to be able to hunt?  I would rather see changes now to MY seasons, so in 20 years my kids won't see changes to theirs.  Something will eventually give, and if we just live with the way it is now because its better for ME right now, we will lose out in the long run. 

Colorado has a statewide permit system for deer.  TONS of opportunity for the meat hunter AND trophy hunter alike. 

Wyoming got rid of most of their late hunts because they saw their mule deer populations dwindling.

Nevada continues to maintain their restrictions on deer hunting but still allows opportunity for OTC tags and also has some of the best mule deer hunting in the country.

As much as I hate Oregon, they are permit for east side rifle but you can hunt OTC with your bow.

All these states have made some sort of compromise to ensure the future of mule deer and their hunting heritage.  Is it too much to ask of our fellow sportmen to give and take a little in this state?

If you restrict a weapon, I will master a new one.  If you limit me to a smaller area, I will work even harder until successful.  If you limit me to a single species, to save another, I will become a master of their ways.  If I have to sell my truck and ride a bike everywhere I go, just to be able to afford the tags, I will do so.  I will always fill my deer tags because I will learn, adapt, and over come any obstacle I have to to be successful, because I am a hunter and thats what we do!

Just so there is no confusion, I DO NOT think the OP's idea is the answer, BUT I do think we as hunters need to quit being so calloused to anything that isn't perfectly taylored and completely convienent to them and them alone.  We CAN have our cake and eat it too.

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. 

[longwalker]

Eroding hunter opportunity.

more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience

if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.

I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.

That's not perception.  That's reality.  Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season.  Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails.  And I have done just this a few times.

The very thing I think should change . Like I said it would be a sacrifice, one I believe the benefits of which would out way the negatives.

[blackveltbowhunter]

I guess I don't understand how it benefits the health of the herd? A dead buck is a dead buck, for some guys it doesn't matter where they do it a deer is dying. It's not restricting harvest, at best it's shifting it in some areas. For some it might be more "quality" but it would come as a sacrifice to others.

[Bigshooter]

Eroding hunter opportunity.

more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience

if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.

I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.

That's not perception.  That's reality.  Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season.  Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails.  And I have done just this a few times.

The very thing I think should change . Like I said it would be a sacrifice, one I believe the benefits of which would out way the negatives.

So you want to limit hunting for everyone so that hunting is better for you.  Why didn't you say that from the start.

The only benefits would be less hunting pressure on whitetails and blacktails.  Both of which have pretty solid populations.  The down side is the slaughter of mule deer that would happen.  With your senario all the westside guys that hold out for a good mule deer buck knowing that if they don't kill a mule deer they can go hunt blacktails and/or whitetails are going to want to make sure they fill there tag with any legal mule deer buck.

[longwalker]

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

[longwalker]

Not real sure how you equate lower numbers of hunters in a given area to higher harvest or " slaughter" as you put it. Presure would be lower across the board. For example you wouldn't be hunting 4 different herds thus there would be less pressure on 3 of them. There's that pesky math again

[Bigshooter]

Not real sure how you equate lower numbers of hunters in a given area to higher harvest or " slaughter" as you put it. Presure would be lower across the board. For example you wouldn't be hunting 4 different herds thus there would be less pressure on 3 of them. There's that pesky math again

I don't think pressure will be less on Mule deer.

I use to hunt with about 15 guys on the eastside.  We didn't shoot a buck unless it was big, because we knew if we didn't kill one we could go hunt blacktails and/or whitetails later on.  Being restricted to just the mule deer season, I know that all 15 of us would kill a small buck instead of holding out for a good one if that was the only season we could hunt.  Usually only a couple bucks would get killed in my camp.