Proposal to eliminate harvesting of cow elk for archery hunters in 8 game units

[D-Rock425]

I think wdfw really drop the ball in 2016 they gave out over 1800 cow permits for the 300 gmu's.  Now put that on top of last years rough winter and now this is where we sit.  I'm completely okay with not hunting cows but archers should get a chance at cow permits just like muzzleloader and rifle hunters.

[Netminder01]

As far as the restrictions are concerned, this is just the beginning. Lack of predator management is going to speed this process along. Hunters are no longer needed to control ungulate numbers even though hunters are the ones responsible for their former abundance.

A lot of truth in this post but it's not the only strategic pressure being placed to reduce hunting, access to land, funding, etc. It's directed to decrease hunting participation/attrition thus naturally reducing the economic benefits hunting and the supporting industries provide.

I don't have enough visibility to know which decisions on population management or weapons help meet long-term, balanced conservation efforts; I put my trust in the leadership of the state. Generally speaking, reducing options, limiting access, reducing licenses, and participation will have a significant impact on overall growth/health within WA and nationally. The industry doesn't matter; hunting, business or tech; grow or die.

[Skyvalhunter]

I don't have enough visibility to know which decisions on population management or weapons help meet long-term, balanced conservation efforts; I put my trust in the leadership of the state. Generally speaking, reducing options, limiting access, reducing licenses, and participation will have a significant impact on overall growth/health within WA and nationally. The industry doesn't matter; hunting, business or tech; grow or die.

There in lies the problem

[dreamingbig]

Speaking specifically to 364 and 356 these proposed changes are unwarranted.  They are cutting all anterless harvest for archers while keeping the cow permits for other user groups.  356 is also closed during the late season so there will be zero cow harvest by archers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Netminder01]

I don't have enough visibility to know which decisions on population management or weapons help meet long-term, balanced conservation efforts; I put my trust in the leadership of the state. Generally speaking, reducing options, limiting access, reducing licenses, and participation will have a significant impact on overall growth/health within WA and nationally. The industry doesn't matter; hunting, business or tech; grow or die.

There in lies the problem

I'm not following, sorry.

[et1702]

I find it comical on this website. Everyone complains that the wdfw isn’t managing properly, then when they do something right for a change everyone complains lol

Hey Bugle, how is it right?  They say elk numbers are down, but in the same breath tell us no official survey has been done in many years.  Just windshield tours of the feed stations.  As late as Feb 2016, WDFW said we had 11,000 elk in the Yak heard.  Then, in March 2017 they said herd had dropped to 8500.  If this were true, we'd have had 2500 elk carcasses rotting in the woods.  I didn't see them, did you.  It would have been a literal bone yard in some of the units we all hunt. 

I have game cams out every year in the unit we typically hunt and did not notice any drop in elk numbers, calf numbers, or bull numbers.  Did anyone else.  In fact, the last three years in a row we've notice both elk and deer numbers appear to be increasing in numbers.

WDFW is not basing this proposed action on any science, only speculation.  We are all hunters here.  A loss of opportunity for one user group, is a loss for all of us.

ET

[PolarBear]

I find it comical on this website. Everyone complains that the wdfw isn’t managing properly, then when they do something right for a change everyone complains lol

I have been saying for years that they need to cut waaaaay back on the antlerless harvests of deer and elk. 

[pianoman9701]

I find it comical on this website. Everyone complains that the wdfw isn’t managing properly, then when they do something right for a change everyone complains lol

The complaint is more that the cuts should be spread around between all three hunting methods. I don't hear anyone saying they don't want healthy elk herds or that with the proper biological evidence we shouldn't respond to population downswings. And, there's little evidence that this move IS proper wildlife management. It seems like more of a shot from the hip. 

[gasman]

All i can do is shake my head when read this thread   

Some people   

[pianoman9701]

All i can do is shake my head when read this thread   

Some people   

You going to explain that at all?

[Skyvalhunter]

 

[popeshawnpaul]

I am the WSB representative working on this issue.  Of the 8 GMUs in the District 8 region, 2 are in the Colockum.  Those areas don't have the resource issue that the 6 Yakima GMUs do.  There was an expansion proposal for firearm and muzzy, while a cut of archery general seasons.  The problem with this is we utilize resource allocation and archery is 2% below objective while muzzy is 2% above objective.  WDFW moves to eliminate the early archery elk season while they expand the other user groups.  This is not about a fight between user groups.  Resource allocation dictates we simply follow the numbers and data.  Each group gets their allocation percentage based on percentage of hunters.  For example, archery is 27% of the elk hunters, so they get 27% of the harvest.  Muzzy is 11%, so they get 11%.  Firearm is 62% so they get 62%

In the 6 Yakima GMUs, bowhunters take about 150 cows per year between the early and late season.  Let's assume half in the early season...75 cows.  There are 3050 elk hunters in these units that will be displaced to try and save 75 cows....and remember archery is low on allocation.  No cuts to firearm and muzzy were proposed.  It would be easy to lower muzzy tags by about 100 to have the same offset harvest and get resource allocation within objectives.  That didn't occur.

This is a moving proposal at this time with many things being considered.  If the elk herd is down as WDFW states, then all user groups must be adjusted fairly and per resource allocation.  So far archery is taking the major brunt of the proposal.  It will displace almost 5k hunters to other areas where cows can be hunted, causing issues in those areas.  Then next year we will have to deal with adjusting seasons in those units.  Not to mention resource allocation numbers will be out of whack next year causing us to make other major changes to get it within objective.  I encourage bowhunters to attend the commission meeting Friday at 11am in Wenatchee to let your thoughts be known.  WSB has been working hard on this for quite some time but outside influences have been thwarting our status quo effort. 

[pianoman9701]

  Thanks for your hard work. I'm stuck in Maine or I'd be there.

[Oh Mah]

  That is quite an explanation right there.

[emac]

Each group gets their allocation percentage based on percentage of hunters.  For example, archery is 27% of the elk hunters, so they get 27% of the harvest.  Muzzy is 11%, so they get 11%.  Firearm is 62% so they get 62%





So are the allocation percentages state wide or gmu specific.

I am just trying to figure out how that works.
So just for an example off of those numbers of wdfw wanted to harvest a 100 cows statewide or a specific gmu with a drawing than modern guys would apply for 67 cow tags muzzy 11 tags and archery 27 tags.
I am just using 100 as a easy example cause math isnt my strong point

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk