washington deer tag choose ONE

[raydog]

Not to sound like an Elitist though

[longwalker]

Not to sound like an Elitist though

never said i was or wasn't. those are your words. your entitled to them

[deerlick]

So who is going to pay for the enforcement to make sure everyone follows these *censored* rules you dreamed up. Poachers are still going to poach and then if this change happened more poaching would happen. I dont think people get how much poaching is affecting hunting in so many areas of this state. There is plenty of good hunting with low pressure if people would just get out of their damn trucks! Leave the roading hunting and sight seeing for grandpa and handicaps.

[longwalker]

Who makes sure your hunting east side elk with an east side tag? Probably those guys would I'm thinking

[muleyguy]

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.

here is the problem defined...........WA state has the highest population base against the smallest land base of any Western state;  in addition we have 50% of the State that has very high population density, which is steadily moving East along the Cascade front for their ski slopes, winter homes, 2nd homes, etc.

There's more people that live in a 75 mile radius of you, then the entire state of Montana or Wyoming..........(if your avatar is right and you live in Everett)

the idea that this State, over the long run, does NOT have to limit opportunity is ludicrous;  what we have in this state is a strong lobby of people like yourself that do not want to limit opportunity, and, a WDFW that also does not want to limit opportunity because of financial considerations, working in concert with each other.

The result???   gimmicks......like statewide APR's, and drastically shortened seasons; and suggestions like this........nothing against he original poster, but, all this is is another gimmick and just pushes hunters around without addressing the larger problem......your just going to increase hunter pressure in some areas, reduce it in others;  great for the few units you reduce it in....disaster for the units you increase it in......

We've had 20 plus years of mule deer 3pt or better rules;  along the way, we have steadily seen shorter and shorter seasons;  so, now, we are down to a 9 day mid October season;  and, what have we gotten for this???   poor age structure, poor buck to doe ratio, stupid crowded, short seasons in mid october when its 80 degrees.

I don't know, if you think that is a great opportunity, then, I guess we have two different opinions of what opportunity means. 

What the system does favor though is the select few people that have thousands of countless hours to devote to scouting, spending every minute in the field etc.  Yup, for you guys, you got the advantage because you do not have to submit to a draw system.

Now, don't go out on your soapbox and tell me that I am just a crybaby and need to spend more time in the field to truly find that secret "nirvana" thats out there in WA.........I have hunted every corner of this State and 7 other States in the West;  have spend the countless hours in the field, and been to every hot public area in the West, most of the time before the crowds have gotten there.   But, what I can tell you, is that a "quality" experience in the field entails much more then shooting a "big" buck.........

you want definition of a "quality" hunt??  a quality hunt is when I can take my 15 yr old daughter who only has a few days here and there to spare in a busy schedule, and go hunt an area with the expectation that:

A.  I won't run into 5000 orange vests....
B.  We have a reasonable chance of shooting a buck
C.  We don't have to travel more then 1 hr from home to do it
D.  We have more then just homecoming saturday to do it........

Outside of the 1 hr from home, I can achieve that in 4 states that border WA..........

The best argument I like is the poaching and predator argument........lets shoot all the bucks before the predators or poachers get them.......hmmm......yeah thats a good strategy.........

So, we can all go along here, debating the intracies of APR's, "pick your area", "pick your weapon", whitetail, blacktail, mule deer, etc.......and nothing will change in this state........

How about we focus the argument on whats best biologically for the herd?  what that is fewer bucks killed.......will it solve all the problems???

Absolutely not.......but, for the few deer we do have, it will make for a strong buck component of the population, with proper age structure, and, an "experience" that is in the longer run better for everybody.

This idea that hunting will "die" if we go to a system that limits hunters is ludicrous.......what will save hunting in this State is a positive experience with it.........and, right now, its not a very positive experience........unless your the guy who spends 180 days in the field........and, I can tell you, hunting will die if that is the only way a positive experience happens in the future.

simple solution.......limit it to being able to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs..........you do that, reduce hunting pressure, and hunter numbers by 1/3rd, you can increase the length of the season, spread the hunter pressure out, increase the buck component, do away with stupid APR's, and, have a great experience 2 out of every 3 yrs.........

is that really too much to ask?






 

[longwalker]

Sweet! Now you guys have someone else to call a selfish A hole and you can get off my back.

Great post muleyguy. I like your idea even better than mine. That's how I know it will never happen

[bobcat]

Proper deer management in this state would be draw only. That's the only way deer can be managed by GMU. As it is, there is no control over who hunts where. It's no management at all.

The hunting 2 out of 3 years idea could be accomplished by draw only deer hunting. A system similar to Oregon would be great here. In Oregon you can still choose to hunt ever year if you want. You just may have to hunt with a bow, or hunt blacktails.

[257 Wby Mag]

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.

here is the problem defined...........WA state has the highest population base against the smallest land base of any Western state;  in addition we have 50% of the State that has very high population density, which is steadily moving East along the Cascade front for their ski slopes, winter homes, 2nd homes, etc.

There's more people that live in a 75 mile radius of you, then the entire state of Montana or Wyoming..........(if your avatar is right and you live in Everett)

the idea that this State, over the long run, does NOT have to limit opportunity is ludicrous;  what we have in this state is a strong lobby of people like yourself that do not want to limit opportunity, and, a WDFW that also does not want to limit opportunity because of financial considerations, working in concert with each other.

The result???   gimmicks......like statewide APR's, and drastically shortened seasons; and suggestions like this........nothing against he original poster, but, all this is is another gimmick and just pushes hunters around without addressing the larger problem......your just going to increase hunter pressure in some areas, reduce it in others;  great for the few units you reduce it in....disaster for the units you increase it in......

We've had 20 plus years of mule deer 3pt or better rules;  along the way, we have steadily seen shorter and shorter seasons;  so, now, we are down to a 9 day mid October season;  and, what have we gotten for this???   poor age structure, poor buck to doe ratio, stupid crowded, short seasons in mid october when its 80 degrees.

I don't know, if you think that is a great opportunity, then, I guess we have two different opinions of what opportunity means. 

What the system does favor though is the select few people that have thousands of countless hours to devote to scouting, spending every minute in the field etc.  Yup, for you guys, you got the advantage because you do not have to submit to a draw system.

Now, don't go out on your soapbox and tell me that I am just a crybaby and need to spend more time in the field to truly find that secret "nirvana" thats out there in WA.........I have hunted every corner of this State and 7 other States in the West;  have spend the countless hours in the field, and been to every hot public area in the West, most of the time before the crowds have gotten there.   But, what I can tell you, is that a "quality" experience in the field entails much more then shooting a "big" buck.........

you want definition of a "quality" hunt??  a quality hunt is when I can take my 15 yr old daughter who only has a few days here and there to spare in a busy schedule, and go hunt an area with the expectation that:

A.  I won't run into 5000 orange vests....
B.  We have a reasonable chance of shooting a buck
C.  We don't have to travel more then 1 hr from home to do it
D.  We have more then just homecoming saturday to do it........

Outside of the 1 hr from home, I can achieve that in 4 states that border WA..........

The best argument I like is the poaching and predator argument........lets shoot all the bucks before the predators or poachers get them.......hmmm......yeah thats a good strategy.........

So, we can all go along here, debating the intracies of APR's, "pick your area", "pick your weapon", whitetail, blacktail, mule deer, etc.......and nothing will change in this state........

How about we focus the argument on whats best biologically for the herd?  what that is fewer bucks killed.......will it solve all the problems???

Absolutely not.......but, for the few deer we do have, it will make for a strong buck component of the population, with proper age structure, and, an "experience" that is in the longer run better for everybody.

This idea that hunting will "die" if we go to a system that limits hunters is ludicrous.......what will save hunting in this State is a positive experience with it.........and, right now, its not a very positive experience........unless your the guy who spends 180 days in the field........and, I can tell you, hunting will die if that is the only way a positive experience happens in the future.

simple solution.......limit it to being able to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs..........you do that, reduce hunting pressure, and hunter numbers by 1/3rd, you can increase the length of the season, spread the hunter pressure out, increase the buck component, do away with stupid APR's, and, have a great experience 2 out of every 3 yrs.........

is that really too much to ask?

Bout the best response I've read in years on hunt wa... it can't continue like it is, I'd like to see a statewide draw as well...

[PA BEN]

Seems like there is a lot of trophy hunters that like to spend money on hunts. What about the guy who hunts for the meat? What about the local hunters who hunt out their back door?

The reason I said this is because there are a lot of posts saying to go to permit only. I for one would be one pissed off resident/landowner of 121 if it went permit only. There are a lot of hunters in this State who want to impose their idea of hunting on the ones who live in their hunting area. I've seen a lot of land leased to guides and hunting groups that take opportunity away from locals who can't afford those type of hunts. 

[Colville]

That's not a thesis.  That's a set of opinions wrapped in irrelevant facts supported by no numbers.  Here's some data and you tell me what they mean in terms of trend.  Antlerless and Anlered are for Districts 4-8 the heart of cascade mule deer country along with the total of hunters afield state wide:


            Hunters    Antlerless    Antlered
2014    120,488      2006          6225
2013    123,928      1071          5608
2012    120,082       633           5391
2011    125,537       532           4821
2010    131,133       548           4761
2009    135,859       461           5605
2008    144,514      544            4135
2007    139,241
2006    135,195
2005    135,653

The kill counts take more time to compile before 08 so I skipped it but I certainly can go do it.

Your contention is that hunting is disimproving and getting more crowded.  The trends are clear as day. There are fewer and fewer hunters on a downtrending line.  Those hunters are killing MORE mule deer than in the past. I see that before the fires of 14 the doe alocation was increasing.  That's not a sign of too few deer and the antlered kill supports that for those years too.  I expect that 2015 and 20116 will now see reductions because the big doe kill last year was driven by the fire decision.

Overall, you are simply wrong. Hunter's are diminishing no matter what you say about population. Success is improving. Antlerless availablility is UP indicating they feel the herd is at carrying capacity.  To me this points out that there's no biological imperative to changing the system.  The demands to change the system are about aesthetics and perception of quality. It's not about deer management. I bet if we had the age data of hunters we'd see that the pool is getting older all the time and recuriting fewer new young hunters. Our trend without doing anything at all is toward more space with fewer hunters getting more deer per hunter.

[TommyH]

 

[elk247]

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.

that won't help because these guys can only have a successful hunt if they harvest "a good buck" you know... One that makes the record book. It has to be fair chase to be in the book. These guys don't care if they have to wait a year or two or more to hunt in this state either because they will have points in other states and will get drawn somewhere or just go buy a meat tag out of state.

 I think the point that this suggestion would do much more harm then good for the mule deer was right on the money. This is after all, all about mule deer. If there is a problem with the deer population the state needs to address that gmu specifically via the regulations on the unit. This isn't a state wide issue. If you guys don't specifically like the way the mule deer herd is managed (you would have plenty of company) then address that issue straight forward.

[longwalker]

Pretty sure that post was directed towards muleyguy. Try to keep up, if not just wait in the car and dont play with the buttons

[Miles]

Pretty sure that post was directed towards muleyguy. Try to keep up, if not just wait in the car and dont play with the buttons

Your sure are a condescending little chit. Stop with the complaining and learn to hunt and you will find the seasons work fine. You slammed other hunters, but from what you have shown you are the one that has no business in the woods little fellow.

Don't worry about Longwinded, he'll be banned soon enough...

[longwalker]