washington deer tag choose ONE

[Curly]

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.

[Chesapeake]

Go here:

https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/AvailableAreas/GMapViewer.aspx

Lots of the westside is going lease this year. Much more than the what was permit last year. Much more!!!!!

I foresee lots more Eastside deer hunters in the near future.

[WAcoueshunter]

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.

That's true.  Of course, it accomplishes reduced pressure across the board for every season by limiting how many days each person can hunt.  Limiting people to a particular unit doesn't reduce overall pressure, it just equalizes it between the units.

Arizona effectively does what you are proposing.  You apply for a particular hunt that is limited to a particular weapon and unit.  Most hunts last for 5-7 days.  There are many hunts with lots of tags that you can draw every year, and others that you need to save up points for.  On the plus side, you know the max tax holders that will be competing with you in that unit for those 5-7 days.  On the down side, you're going to be limited to the area and unit you drew, and those 5-7 days are your hunting for the year. 

Personally, I like our system.  The crowds don't bug me, that's just part of the game - finding room for yourself away from the crowds.   

[Gringo31]

More pressure right?

Yes, I get that point.


Do you get the point that available reducing days in the field and equally distributing hunters may not change deer harvest?

[Piscatory_5]

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.

I'm going to agree with colville pretty much entirely. Many people want a draw only for the elitist atmosphere but I would prefer a more open approach and get rid of all of these special draws,bogus point systems and exclusive 'good ol boys' hunts. What about the folks who have limited hunting days available and the days they are free there is something preventing them taking advantage of those days? I you want to hunt managed herds of deer go pay for private ranch/farm access where they feed the deer and grow trophies every year. Pretty soon trophies won't be trophies, they are supposed to be few and far between and difficult to get, but everyone should have the same opportunity to hunt for them.

[longwalker]

More pressure right?

Yes, I get that point.


Do you get the point that available reducing days in the field and equally distributing hunters may not change deer harvest?

I do. And I don't think I ever stated that it would . I also won't say that it wouldn't either . It's one of those hypothetical things that you would really need more solid numbers to confirm or deniy. Can you say unequivocally that it would or wouldn't one way or the other ? I can't , but I can say it would reduce pressure . And I think that's been my pretty steadfast point all along

[longwalker]

but everyone should have the same opportunity to hunt for them.

]

every one would? i dont think any of the seasons should be reduced in fact i think with something like this they should be extended. its not like this is unprecedented in this state. if this is such a backwards idea with no biologic sense behind it, why did they do it with elk....

[Gringo31]

You say reduce pressure....I think you mean that you want to change it so there are less people in the field at a time.  Yes, everyone will get a chance to be in the field, but today you feel there are too many and this is a way to fix that.

It's interesting that there is a thread talking about the good ol' days.  I wasn't around in the 50-60s but I'm told by those that were that there were WAY more people in the field than today.  Yes, less people lived in our state but a much higher percentage of the population hunted.

[longwalker]

On much vaster tracts of land with much more liberal seasons. I don't think that's a relevant comparison

[raydog]

I think there is a few things that could be done before reducing access to hunters. Predator management is the best thing to help out the deer numbers. If you want to disperse out hunters fighting the stupid timber companies pay to play game would be a great start too.  

[JimmyHoffa]

I'm still open to hear more of what you are thinking lw, but at the present I would be kind of opposed.  Reason is that so many kids seem to be on a tight schedule with school/sports activities on weekends and school during the week, they may need to move about the state to the different seasons to get in enough hunting.  An example kid might be able to go for mule deer with dad on the opening day, get a day or two after school for blacktail and then finish up at say grandparent's or friend's farm in the late whitetail season.  Some kid might plan for one, then have things change so have to travel to the other part of the state to do any hunting.

[haus]

Personally I don't see sufficient value in draw only or area/GMU specific restrictions on the basis of a "quality" hunt. I use to, exclusive opportunity to smoke a big bull or buck is cool right? Been on many of those hunts with friends and fam. Big animals, good times, etc.

Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.

I support limited draw only hunting on the basis of needing to protect a specific local population so long as its in conjunction with other actions, such as targetting habitat improvement as well as identifying the primary cause of mortality, then fixing it. In the mean time, a few hunters get a special opportunity each season, even better if the hunts draw permit funds are allocated for helping the given herd in that area.

Do the mule deer in some areas need help? Yes, those that reside on public land do. This can be addressed without shredding our current state wide general season to little pieces and replacing it with a Colorado-esque system.

[longwalker]

Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.

It's funny all the guys that have claimed anyone who wants anything like this does so out of selfish motives, since in all cases those making that accusation are absolutely un willing to give up anything when it comes to there deer hunting. I think that's a pretty good example of irony

[Colville]

Why would anyone be willing to try anything without a thesis?

What is the problem, defined.  What does a proper change or correction to that problem look like?  How will we measure the outcome against the test proposed?  How has the proposer proved/shown that the solution being proposed is the least invasive to sportsman, have they even attempted to discuss that? What does that tell you about whether their motivation is Mule Deer herd numbers vs other personal preferences?

No way in hell am I going to throw away opportunity because some people say "mule deer need help".  That's a truism like kids need an education. We throw gobs more money at it and the quality metrics of education stay the same so what do we do?  Throw more money at it!  Nope.  Show me the measured herd problem in numbers and then do the work on how and why we should do anything at all, let alone such a drastic thing.

By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Making people shift locations in order to create disbursement is mitigated if you allow the lower head count to hunt for more days!  Why do you think the department keeps track of hunter days in the field rather than just hunters.

[haus]

Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.

It's funny all the guys that have claimed anyone who wants anything like this does so out of selfish motives, since in all cases those making that accusation are absolutely un willing to give up anything when it comes to there deer hunting. I think that's a pretty good example of irony

I don't believe its done out of selfish motive, I said its self serving. By that I mean in the present state of reasoning and implementation by the WDFW for draw only units the benefits of such are limited to a small percentage of individuals and thus the results. I explained an alternate approach to purpose for draw only. From an economics standpoint the alternative makes sense, as it does from an environmental standpoint.