UNDIVIDE WASHINGTON STATE

[Bullkllr]

Would you care to elaborate on why a 3pt minimum would be detrimental to the herd?

It would kill all the quality hunts on those areas, more bulls would be taken, less cows would be covered..few off the top of my head.

The bull:cow ratio would likely fall precipitously, which by most biological standards is the worst way to manage an elk population.

[Maverick]

We look at this all the time on the GMAC.  We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people.  The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable.  3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better.  I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls.  This isn't Wyoming...

Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six  by is plenty big for majority of hunters...

And those hunter have the west side to hunt every year for those 300 inch 6x6s. The blues don't have the cover the west side has and it would be a sad slaughter if they opened it up for 3 point or better. Everyone would flood to the blues the first year for a chance at one of the big bulls.

[kentrek]

We look at this all the time on the GMAC.  We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people.  The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable.  3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better.  I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls.  This isn't Wyoming...

Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six  by is plenty big for majority of hunters...

And those hunter have the west side to hunt every year for those 300 inch 6x6s. The blues don't have the cover the west side has and it would be a sad slaughter if they opened it up for 3 point or better. Everyone would flood to the blues the first year for a chance at one of the big bulls.

You missed the part about leving some units permit,obviously some areas are more sensitive to hunting pressure then others....that would be for the wildlife bios to decide

Sad slaughters never need to happen...they can up the hunting pressure year by year until the herd has reached a point that is once again determined healthy by the bios

[Branden]

We look at this all the time on the GMAC.  We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people.  The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable.  3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better.  I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls.  This isn't Wyoming...

Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six  by is plenty big for majority of hunters...

Good luck finding that 300" six point. Look at Colorado. Way more elk yet 1 out of 20-30 bulls I see are 300"+.

I don't care if it was the blues or the Yakima area. It would be a slaughter. If they only opened a few units it would be crowded and those units would be void of elk in a few years. Then they would make it permit only again.

Regards, Branden.

[Maverick]

Exactly Brandon. The blues and lower Yakima units need to stay permit only. Up higher around the pacific crest trail would survive with 3 point minimum

[Jonathan_S]

I think some people are incorrectly assuming that managing for big bulls is purely about quality hunts. Having a certain number of big breeding bulls is essential to proper breeding and is the natural process in the way that elk herd and breed. Not saying they won't otherwise survive but it is an important factor.

[buglebrush]

Most areas in Idaho are any bull.... Go 5x or better.   Don't fall for the WDFW's money grab of making everything permit.   

[Odell]

Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?

I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.

What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...

Third option, if you apply for a tag you have to hunt east or west, whichever side you applied for. If you don't apply for a tag you can hunt any general season on either side. Do it for deer and elk.

[KopperBuck]

Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?

I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.

What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...

Third option, if you apply for a tag you have to hunt east or west, whichever side you applied for. If you don't apply for a tag you can hunt any general season on either side. Do it for deer and elk.

That is interesting. Not totally unlike ID's system of application.

[Maverick]

Odell that's not a bad idea. I always apply for tags so makes no difference to me but to jot put infor permits and have the whole state to hunt is an interesting thought.

[acrocker]

"Most areas in Idaho are any bull.... Go 5x or better.   Don't fall for the WDFW's money grab of making everything permit.   "

It seems to me that Idaho is waaaaaay less populated than Washington, with way less pressure overall considering the amount of elk-holding land that they have versus ours. With our hunter density I think it makes sense to keep it divided and make people choose where they want to hunt....

[BULLBLASTER]

I'd like to see the permits restrict the hunt to that hunt only also. Like Idaho. You draw a permit that's your hunt.
That would increase odds because people would only apply for hints they will actually hunt.

[buglebrush]

"Most areas in Idaho are any bull.... Go 5x or better.   Don't fall for the WDFW's money grab of making everything permit.   "

It seems to me that Idaho is waaaaaay less populated than Washington, with way less pressure overall considering the amount of elk-holding land that they have versus ours. With our hunter density I think it makes sense to keep it divided and make people choose where they want to hunt....

To be clear I'm not saying to undivide it.  Was responding to the notion we shouldn't open up more permit areas to OTC.  And Idaho has tens of thousands more hunters per year than Washington as has been covered here.

[acrocker]

I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will...  ), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.

The division of the state does help to keep the harvest numbers down by restricting where hunters can hunt. I don't think that this is done with malicious intent from WDFW, with them trying to keep us all from ..."Getting our fair share." I think it's a somewhat logical way of balancing hunting pressure vs. herd tolerance for harvest, since most people really like the OTC tag system and expect be able to hunt every year.

Obviously, Idaho has way more elk taken and a better success rate - can our herds support that kind of success? I would think if we averaged 25% harvest per year, we'd shoot ourselves out of elk pretty soon...

[klickman]

I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will...  ), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.

The division of the state does help to keep the harvest numbers down by restricting where hunters can hunt. I don't think that this is done with malicious intent from WDFW, with them trying to keep us all from ..."Getting our fair share." I think it's a somewhat logical way of balancing hunting pressure vs. herd tolerance for harvest, since most people really like the OTC tag system and expect be able to hunt every year.

Obviously, Idaho has way more elk taken and a better success rate - can our herds support that kind of success? I would think if we averaged 25% harvest per year, we'd shoot ourselves out of elk pretty soon...

Agreed.  Also, Idaho has ~40,000 more elk and Idaho is ~12,000 square miles larger.  That will spread guys out and help their success rates.  Our management for elk seems to be working.  We have good opportunity at some spectacular animals. Why change anything?