Washington Mule deer hunting by permit only...???

[Rainier10]

MtnMuley, fair enough statement and I know my group would adjust as others have and do something else. Especially if it were for better heard health and better hunting in the long run. We have talked about it many times since they really started pushing to close down the late archery seasons for deer. I hope it doesn't happen but we do have a plan B if needed.

[DaveMonti]

The role of the WDFW is to manage wildlife in the state.  Hunting is a tool (and a huge revenue generator) to do that.  The WDFW's responsibility is more than managing hunting and fishing.  There is a reason the department is not called the Department of Hunting and Fishing and Trapping. 

The decisions the WDFW make should be based on science and to the benefit of all wildlife species and the environment as a whole, not just to benefit the game animals.  Part of managing game animals is managing the predator population.  The science will show what the optimum numbers of different species are, but science cannot predict wildfires, harsh winters, and other impacts to the populations.  I can't say that the WDFW is managing all these things to the maximum benefit, but there is a lot more to managing wildlife than maximizing the number of deer and elk in the state. 

Now, while science should be a significant factor in determining how the WDFW manages all the species, and hunting is one of the tools in their toolbox to manage the numbers, there are a lot of other things that the department considers, and a lot of them are political and non-science based.  Not only that, but with the state, actually getting the scientific data is a nightmare, with years of planning, budgeting, proposals, approvals, you name it, it's all preventing the state from managing in a flexible and responsive way.  To get the science which says what is most beneficial (permit vs. general season) is a cluster in and of itself (thanks to the bureaucracy of government). 

We are hunters, and we want abundant, quality wildlife, in areas we can hunt without a lot of other hunters around, and we want liberal seasons with no predators competing for our game and no west side hunters on the east side and all kinds of conflicting things, we as a bunch are only ONE of many parties the WDFD must consider in creating a holistic policy for all Washington Wildlife. 

20 years ago in Pennsylvania, there were HUGE numbers of deer.  Everyone hunted and bagged game.  Most of what they were bagging were spikes and small antlerless deer.  It was not a healthy herd.  The Game Commission started reducing the herd to improve the health of the herd by upping the antlerless harvests, and instituted a 3 point minimum for bucks.  Hunters were outraged and many quit hunting because the plan was to "kill all the deer with all these doe permits".  However, the state had to manage wildlife in a way that was healthy for the environment, which included the forests, which was a huge resource for the state and it's citizens.  Part of managing the forests was managing the deer population, which did major damage to young trees.  It was not about making the hunters happy, but managing all the wildlife in the state for all concerned parties.  After a few lean years, the quality of deer went up, the number of hunters went down, and those of us that waited it out had much better, less crowded hunting.  It may not have been the best thing that there were less people hunting (and less hunters voting), but it made those of us who worked hard hunting deer pretty happy, and the timber companies and the state were happy as well. 

I'm just throwing this out because it seems like folks feel like the WDFW is "The Department of Hunting and Fishing" and that hunters are the only stakeholder.  There are a lot more things they must consider than hunters desire for trophy bucks, LOTS of deer, and few hunters in their spot on opening day.  While all these concerns are valid, there are many reasons (legit and not so legit, science based and political) why what we want as hunters isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not we hunt by permit or general seasons only.  There are also a lot of conflicting things we want as individuals within a the group, and conflicting things we want as a group as a whole.  Just think about "we need more hunters", "we want more deer", and "we want less people hunting where we are hunting".  That's conflict in what we want.  (Yes, I know, not everyone wants these things). 

[BGLEMIN]

Tagging

[Bango skank]

Chiliwist was a fav of many for years for late general  archery. It was shut down to permit only. Hunters adjusted. Entiat was open for late general archery for years. It was shut down to permit only. Hunters adjusted. Mule deer went from any buck to 3pt or better. Hunters adjusted.

Whitetail went to 4pt min in 2 units, hunters cried like little babies and wdfw caved.

[buglebrush]

Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure.   Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho.   Problem solved.   Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement!   

[jackelope]

Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure.   Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho.   Problem solved.   Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement!   

This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.

[Gringo31]

I think people forget how populated our state is.  Other western states don't have this issue.


In reading some of the mule deer plan.  It seems much of it is to start a new way of gaining data.  My gut says that until that data is collected, they will change nothing.  Not saying I disagree.....   

People needs to think or be able to answer what the carrying capacity is.  Without that, there is no way to determine the success of current population.   

[WAcoueshunter]

Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure.   Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho.   Problem solved.   Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement!   

This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.

   Unfortunately a wide open free for all is just not in the cards between our limited mule deer habitat and the number of people that live here.  They have mule deer in every corner of their State, and we have 4x the population.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I prefer to not eliminate general season mule deer hunting, although that is the most logical way to go if bigger bucks in the harvest is the primary objective.  Last survey data I saw, the majority of Washington deer hunters want to have general seasons for all three species, and the hunting experience with family and friends every year is the dominant motivating factor.  However, the proportion of hunters wanting higher success and bigger bucks - and are willing to sacrifice hunting OTC every year - is increasing.

If the primary goals are maintaining general seasons and having increased buck escapement, I would propose ending mule deer hunting - both special permit and late season - before the rut.  Divide up the hunting between all the user groups in September and October, and leave the deer alone to breed and winter.  Mule deer are far more vulnerable to harvest during the breeding season than either blacktails or whitetails; if you want to hunt the rut, those are the two that should receive the bulk of the pressure.  Even a small number of hunters during the rut can eliminate a large portion of the biggest bucks in any given herd - even if they are hunting with "primitive weapons". 

I'm a pragmatist though - as long as we continue to have opportunities to hunt vulnerable, rut-dumb mule deer bucks in open country, with our chained up 4x4s, snowmobiles, insane optics, rangefinders and thousand yard rifles (or 200 yard frontstuffers, or 100 yard bows) - I'll be applying or hunting the late general season with all the rest.  Even put in for a multiseason tag for the first time this year.

[Karl Blanchard]

I'll say it again, kill more predators................lots of them!

[Kittman]

The current seasons do offer fair and equal opportunity to most hunters.  In my opinion I see nothing wrong with that, that is very few individuals are being denied a decent hunting opportunity. And if the field is too crowded would you consider finding  yourself a new place rather than performing a laundry exercise of sorting out the left handed socks from the right handed ones?

[buglebrush]

Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure.   Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho.   Problem solved.   Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement!   

This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.

   Unfortunately a wide open free for all is just not in the cards between our limited mule deer habitat and the number of people that live here.  They have mule deer in every corner of their State, and we have 4x the population.

90% of hunters will still only hunt the same amount of days.  It's not like we can get 13 weeks off work.  What changes is my 7 days of hunting are much less likely to coincide with your 7 days.  Trust me it works.  Shorten the mule deer portion of you want to. 

And as has been mentioned many times this state refuses to aggressively manage predators.  This is the single biggest problem yet so many Washington hunters give wdfw a pass on it!   

[BGLEMIN]

Limited quota is just that...limited. Until moving to Washington, I spent 17 years having to apply for mule deer permits. This was also in some of Colorado's best deer hunting areas. What I witnessed over that time span was some of the most proactive deer management that has defied scientific data. Herds can be restored. Across all of the mule deer's range, the trend is sad. It is a trend of decline. Encroachment of habitat and habitat degradation are the primary contributors.

With respect to hunting and hunting pressure, hunters have a far reaching effect on wildlife populations when unregulated. For the majority of western states, muley  hunting is by draw only. Each of these limited quota, draw only states recognized that herds were struggling. A few states limit solely because they don't have much habitat and as such, smaller herds. But Arizona, Utah, & New Mexico produce some world class muleys. I most likely will never get the chance to hunt monsters on the Kaibab or the Paunsagaunt. Yet I can't help but be proud that somewhere, people have made it possible for bucks to reach maturity. Genetics play a huge roll too.

Not every 190" buck is dominant. By placing an antler point restriction greater than 2 point, a greater number of lesser antler quality but more tenacious bucks end up breeding the majority of does. Inevitably antler point restrictions remove the multi-point, desirable genes sought by hunters. Being replaced by the passing of genes from cull bucks we can't take.

Of all predators, our effect can be damaging. However, we can apply the effort to reverse the trend. A cougar, wolf, coyote, Lynx, near, or eagle cannot.

[fishnfur]

The role of the WDFW is to manage wildlife in the state.  Hunting is a tool (and a huge revenue generator) to do that.  The WDFW's responsibility is more than managing hunting and fishing.  There is a reason the department is not called the Department of Hunting and Fishing and Trapping. 

The decisions the WDFW make should be based on science and to the benefit of all wildlife species and the environment as a whole, not just to benefit the game animals.  Part of managing game animals is managing the predator population.  The science will show what the optimum numbers of different species are, but science cannot predict wildfires, harsh winters, and other impacts to the populations.  I can't say that the WDFW is managing all these things to the maximum benefit, but there is a lot more to managing wildlife than maximizing the number of deer and elk in the state. 

Now, while science should be a significant factor in determining how the WDFW manages all the species, and hunting is one of the tools in their toolbox to manage the numbers, there are a lot of other things that the department considers, and a lot of them are political and non-science based.  Not only that, but with the state, actually getting the scientific data is a nightmare, with years of planning, budgeting, proposals, approvals, you name it, it's all preventing the state from managing in a flexible and responsive way.  To get the science which says what is most beneficial (permit vs. general season) is a cluster in and of itself (thanks to the bureaucracy of government). 

We are hunters, and we want abundant, quality wildlife, in areas we can hunt without a lot of other hunters around, and we want liberal seasons with no predators competing for our game and no west side hunters on the east side and all kinds of conflicting things, we as a bunch are only ONE of many parties the WDFD must consider in creating a holistic policy for all Washington Wildlife. 

20 years ago in Pennsylvania, there were HUGE numbers of deer.  Everyone hunted and bagged game.  Most of what they were bagging were spikes and small antlerless deer.  It was not a healthy herd.  The Game Commission started reducing the herd to improve the health of the herd by upping the antlerless harvests, and instituted a 3 point minimum for bucks.  Hunters were outraged and many quit hunting because the plan was to "kill all the deer with all these doe permits".  However, the state had to manage wildlife in a way that was healthy for the environment, which included the forests, which was a huge resource for the state and it's citizens.  Part of managing the forests was managing the deer population, which did major damage to young trees.  It was not about making the hunters happy, but managing all the wildlife in the state for all concerned parties.  After a few lean years, the quality of deer went up, the number of hunters went down, and those of us that waited it out had much better, less crowded hunting.  It may not have been the best thing that there were less people hunting (and less hunters voting), but it made those of us who worked hard hunting deer pretty happy, and the timber companies and the state were happy as well. 

I'm just throwing this out because it seems like folks feel like the WDFW is "The Department of Hunting and Fishing" and that hunters are the only stakeholder.  There are a lot more things they must consider than hunters desire for trophy bucks, LOTS of deer, and few hunters in their spot on opening day.  While all these concerns are valid, there are many reasons (legit and not so legit, science based and political) why what we want as hunters isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not we hunt by permit or general seasons only.  There are also a lot of conflicting things we want as individuals within a the group, and conflicting things we want as a group as a whole.  Just think about "we need more hunters", "we want more deer", and "we want less people hunting where we are hunting".  That's conflict in what we want.  (Yes, I know, not everyone wants these things).

Re-read it.  He hit the nail on the head.  Remember when Mom told you "you can't please everybody"?  Mom understood many things we never gave her credit for.  WDFW also cannot please everybody either - stop expecting them to.

I've never hunted on the east side - but I am considering it this year.  I would not support the OPs original suggestion. ( I doubt business owners on the east side would either).  I like knowing  that I can take a short trip, hunt new territory and different animals and not have to pay out-of-state license fees to do it.   My mid-week three or four day hunting trip to the dry side isn't going to have any significant impact on the population of Mule deer or WTs or someone else's enjoyment of their hunting season. 

Human encroachment into Muley habitat, and all the negatives that go along with humans living and recreating out there are primarily responsible for the decline of the Mule Deer, and we should expect that it will only worsen in the future as human populations continue to grow.  Limiting hunter access through specific hunting permits will not improve the herd in the long term.  It will increase numbers for awhile, but predators populations will respond in an upward trend, car strikes will be more frequent, and severe weather will kill more animals than occurs now.
 

[Rainier10]

My guess is IF they ever went to permit only for mule deer there would be so much push back that you would still have the option to deer hunt during the general season for blacktail and whitetail.  There is no way they would be able to get away with draw a permit or don't hunt deer at all or choose to hunt blacktail and whitetail but you can't put in for the mule deer permit as the only options.  So what you would have is people switching to blacktail or whitetail on the years they don't draw a muledeer permit and there would be increased pressure and crowding in those areas.