Deleted

[Macs B]

delete

[bobcat]

They go by the success rates. As long as success rates stay relatively the same over time, they assume all is good.

Success rates are managed by adjusting the timing and length of seasons. They also adjust antlerless seasons and/or special permits to increase or decrease populations.

This is just my perception of how it's done. I'm certainly no expert or authority on the subject.

If you're interested in doing some reading, they have game management plans available here:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/

[Bob33]

I may be mistaken but I believe what Bobcat is referring to are overall harvest numbers, not success rates. The overall "success rate" (number of hunters that harvested an elk) for elk hunters is somewhere south of 10%, which is very low by western state standards.

WDFW has biologists in various regions throughout the state that do counts and population estimates of huntable species, and from these can then make recommendations about how many should be taken by hunters in a particular year without damaging the breeding stock. That in turn can determine how long a season is open for, how many special permits are given out, and so forth.

The reality is that science is tempered by a desire to keep hunter numbers high, because that generates license revenue. Those objectives often conflict.

[Gringo31]

I think you are asking good questions....



Unfortunately, at the end of your thought process you may end up where many of us are......and that is that it isn't about managing "game".  The "game" is how much money they can get from us.   

[popeshawnpaul]

Can anyone point me to the documents or plan that outline Washington's game management plan?  We've been solving the world's problems at breakfast for a while now, and this one comes up frequently.  The question is "What is Washington's management plan"?.  To the best of my knowledge there is no limit to over the counter deer and elk tags sold.  Same with bear and small game as well as waterfowl.  Cougar would be the only exception I can think of, in that they will close a quota after a certain number of reported kills. 

This really gets to a couple of questions, such as why do you need a multi season license to hunt when you can only kill one animal regardless of how you choose to hunt.  Secondly how does the state respond to unusually high success rates when thye don't require a reporting or check in until after the season? 

Not trying to be funny, but I honestly can't figure out any method that the state could feasibly be using.  Comments? 

I think for simplicity sake we could confine this to big game, as all small game and waterfowl and bird are bag limited.

Resource Allocation is how the major game species are manged.  They look at the amount of deer/elk they want harvested.  They take that number and distribute it evenly among the 3 weapon groups.  So archery is about 15% so they get 15% of the game.  It's 10% generally for muzzy so they get 10% and modern gets the rest.  The harvest for each weapon choice is controlled by length of season, equipment rules, timing of seasons, and special permits.

[NoBark]

Start Here

http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/game/

[Skyvalhunter]

There once was a spot on the WDFW homepage that gave the GMU objectives but can't seem to locate it.

[NoBark]

Macs,   They rely on length of season and historical use.  They also rely on the thick crap we have to hunt on the west side to protect some of the bulls.   It is possible that everyone could hunt in one unit, but I don't know too many hunters who want to be in the same place as everyone else.

[nwwanderer]

You are correct, most is done after the fact.  Modeling is used which may or may not apply locally.  The different regions and the state do not play will in the sand box with many things happening that are not generally known.  A great deal of planning and posturing, the wolf facilitator is an example, not much rubber on the road.

[JimmyHoffa]

I agree with you all so far.  Here is a question that keeps coming up in my mind.  In any given year there are no limits to lets say Western WA Modern firearm Elk.  Or any other specific game and weapon choice.  So what keeps a population from being shot out.  The way the system is designed, 500 guys could get together and all of them hunt GMU "whatever" on the west side and technically each man could take a branch  bull from that GMU, without any draw or special permit requirements. Its feasible that the system doesn't prevent every WA deer hunter from buying modern rifle and hunting the same GMU.  I can't figure out where the management of the game comes in, everything is essentially posthumous game management.

There tend to be enough 2 pts leftover (making 3 or 4 the following year) that the herd can carry on.  When they allowed any bull, some of the westside units got hit so hard that virtually nothing was left to breed the cows and the herds crashed.  Those went special permit for a number of years (i.e. dickey). 

[Bob33]

The way the system is designed, 500 guys could get together and all of them hunt GMU "whatever" on the west side and technically each man could take a branch  bull from that GMU, without any draw or special permit requirements.

Yes, that is correct. It's also possible that all 500 could buy a lottery ticket and win, but it's about as likely as all 500 of the hunters shooting a branch antlered bull. Historically, success rates for modern elk hunters in general seasons run about 7%-10%. The estimated harvest for 500 hunters would be 35 to 50 bulls.

[bobcat]

I agree game management in Washington is not really management at all. With no limit on the number of tags purchased and no control as to where all those hunters choose to hunt, how it can be considered "wildlife management" I have no idea.

It seems that Weyerhaeuser is actually doing more wildlife management now, than the WDFW does, because they are controlling the number of hunters  in each particular area that they own.

I think the WDFW is going to need to begin doing the same, in areas that remain open to the general public. I'm not sure how long we can continue on with the unlimited deer and elk tags and no control of the deer and elk harvest by GMU.

However, having said that, the reason they can't allow everyone to hunt all seasons, is that would increase success rates. Even though each person is only allowed one animal, only 1 hunter in 4 kill a deer each year. Giving everyone more time to hunt will increase the success rate and therefore the overall harvest will be higher, and probably more than is sustainable.

[Bob33]

I agree game management in Washington is not really management at all. With no limit on the number of tags purchased and no control as to where all those hunters choose to hunt, how it can be considered "wildlife management" I have no idea.

Historical data can provide a reasonably accurate estimate of how many hunters will be in each GMU and what the harvest will be. If you look at harvest data for each GMU, you can see the data does not vary significantly from year to year.

It's theoretically possible that the thousands of hunters who selected westside modern elk tags last year will all decide to get eastside archery tags this year, but extremely unlikely.

It may not be perfect, but it's not accurate to say there is no management at all.

[bobcat]

Yes I know, the management is by short seasons and antler restrictions. And unlimited numbers of over the counter tags. It's just not my preference of the way to manage hunting in a heavily populated state.

[Bob33]

I think it's fair to say it's mismanaged, or managed poorly if hunter success is one of the criteria.

[Bob33]

I keep coming back in my head to the fact that you can't retroactively manage wildlife.  Look at the other populations in the state.  Why isn't salmon fishing managed in the same way as big game hunting?  We could count how many people caught fish and how many were caught last year and adjust next years fishing limits and seasons accordingly.  But that is not how we do it.  We limit the number of fish and even the type of a species you can catch and possess, today in real time.  I think the notion of managing by estimating success rates is pure folly.  All it will take is one anomaly in a given year and a herd is decimated, or a GMU is shot out, or even worse a population is damaged to a point that continued hunting is too risky.  That is not good game management.

"We could count how many people caught fish and how many were caught last year and adjust next years fishing limits and seasons accordingly."

"All it will take is one anomaly in a given year and...."

An anomaly in next year's fishery could do the same harm.

[bearpaw]

I think WDFW does a fair job of managing our wildlife and seasons. They can't count everything, modeling is needed. I think you are somehow misguided thinking everyone will hunt the same unit, that will never happen, hunters try to go where others don't. I also think WDFW does a fair job of estimating fish runs and setting seasons accordingly as run numbers change from the estimates.

One big thing, WDFW can't satisfy everyone and some people will always complain. The biggest problem I see is lack of trying to maximize fish and herd numbers, too many predators in the water and on land, loss of winter range and spawning area, failure to utilize the full potential of existing WDFW and other public lands and waters.

We are the smallest western state with nearly the largest population, we must maximize our resources.

[bowhunterty]

Check out the game management tab on left on WDFW Hunting page. harvest stats and Game Status on trend report is on there among other things

[Bob33]

WDFW can also issue an emergency closure if harvest vs. available surplus animal estimates are significantly wrong. They can issue additional permits, also.

[csaaphill]

There tend to be enough 2 pts leftover (making 3 or 4 the following year) that the herd can carry on.  When they allowed any bull, some of the westside units got hit so hard that virtually nothing was left to breed the cows and the herds crashed.  Those went special permit for a number of years (i.e. dickey).

I get the application of how it is working but it doesn't seem like a system that is designed to work as much as one that is working by chance.  Reminds me of an old saying, "Hope isn't a plan".

With a management program like this in place, have you ever questioned why it is that a multi season permit is required.  if a hunter can only take one of the species what difference could it possibly make if he did it with bow, ml, or rifle?
[/quote]
because people want or wanted to be able to that is why. On the Multi season question that is. They stopped allowing that years ago, and people griped about it, me and others being part of that. I/we want to if we didn't score in archery be able to still go in some other season. The way it was years ago I think was pretty much open and you could get a archery tag, not get anything, buy a Muzzy tag not get anything, and then do the modern tag, and maybe get something then, or not. It mainly allows people more time in the field not allowing them more deer, elk, what have ya. Now it's done by draw so it does actually control the numbers and who get them.

[csaaphill]

I think WDFW does a fair job of managing our wildlife and seasons. They can't count everything, modeling is needed. I think you are somehow misguided thinking everyone will hunt the same unit, that will never happen, hunters try to go where others don't. I also think WDFW does a fair job of estimating fish runs and setting seasons accordingly as run numbers change from the estimates.

One big thing, WDFW can't satisfy everyone and some people will always complain. The biggest problem I see is lack of trying to maximize fish and herd numbers, too many predators in the water and on land, loss of winter range and spawning area, failure to utilize the full potential of existing WDFW and other public lands and waters.

We are the smallest western state with nearly the largest population, we must maximize our resources.

Leave over the counter alone.