Washington General Season Deer Harvest: 1997-2017

[Bob33]

By hunting method:

[ctwiggs1]

An interesting site for stat research (nope, not my site  )

http://huntplanner.us/

[X-Force]

Do you want to make a graph by harvests instead of percentages?? 

[Timberstalker]

Maybe another chart to show hunter numbers.  That will tell the true story.

[Bob33]

Data can be found here: https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/

[X-Force]

Its crazy to see how consistent harvest results are + or - a couple percent.

[rtspring]

Hunter reports are very misleading,  If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...

Just stating facts.. 

[ctwiggs1]

Hunter reports are very misleading,  If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...

Just stating facts..

That's likely across the board though.  So let's just say it's 20% under-reported.  That means that pretty much everything is likely 20% low.... So you can still argue that the patterns are relevant regardless of the hard numbers.

[rtspring]

Hunter reports are very misleading,  If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...

Just stating facts..

That's likely across the board though.  So let's just say it's 20% under-reported.  That means that pretty much everything is likely 20% low.... So you can still argue that the patterns are relevant regardless of the hard numbers.

True, give or take

[Jpmiller]

Hunter reports are very misleading,  If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...

Just stating facts..

I 100% agree the reports aren't accurate but I don't understand why you would want to incorrectly report? What's the gain?

[92xj]

People misreport for all sorts of reasons, they might think reporting a kill could add up to over harvest numbers and wdfw taking tags away from the unit the next year, etc.


(Removed insult)

[X-Force]

Hunter reports are very misleading,  If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...

Just stating facts..

I can see people who are not successful fibbing on there reports but people who are successful could get hit hard by fibbing.

I don't see the point in not telling the truth on these reports.

[idahohuntr]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

[Rainier10]

Interesting.  I know that they are always tweaking the regulations to get the success percentage close between all users groups.  They pretty much nailed it in 2006, 2010 and 2012.  For the most part they have kept it pretty close.  You can see that years that the archery success is higher than other user groups the following year it is more in line or even lower as they make adjustments.  It seems to hold true for years of high or low modern or muzzy success as well, the following year they make adjustments to try and balance the success rate out.

I do think they are trying to make it as fair for all groups as possible.  Sometimes they get it wrong.  Hind sight/seeing the stats afterwards is always 20/20.

[Skyvalhunter]

Hey -- why is everything on a downward slide?

[Rainier10]

Hey Super Mod why is everything on a downward slide?

Are you asking me?  This is the second reference to "super mod" I have seen today but the first time I have seen it right after one of my posts.

So if it is directed at me can you be more specific because looking at both charts in this thread I don't see that "everything" is on the downhill slide.

[Oh Mah]

I was wondering the same on all 

Why the super mod and wheres the down hill slide it is consistently up and down with a peak in 2015-16.

1 could argue better reporting by hunters that care and maybe even better managing of the game. 

[jackelope]

Sarcastic "Super mod" comments in attempts to insult someone are uncalled for and against forum rules. If you have an issue with a mod or the moderation of a thread or a post, feel free to pm one of the guys in red. Otherwise, the insults are not ok. Please keep that in mind moving forward.

[Rainier10]

Thanks Josh.  That is very true.  I think most of the mods have thicker skin but that doesn't mean that we should tolerate that type of behavior and I certainly wouldn't let a comment like that go if directed at a member here.  If they weren't directed at the mod team I would have deleted them.

Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages.  It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.

[Jpmiller]

Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages.  It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.

I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations 

[JimmyHoffa]

Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages.  It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.

I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations 

Well, Conservation NW does have an agent on the commission so the ending hunting part isn't really much of a reach.  A previous commissioner (Jennings) was anti hunting and anti fishing, too.

[Rainier10]

Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages.  It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.

I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations 

In all seriousness you can juggle or just interpret the numbers to reflect whatever you want them to.  I am a half full kind of guy so I see it as they are trying.  I also think that without their efforts we would be in a whole lot more dire shape than we are now.

[Bob33]

I am surprised that the overall harvest rates have been flat or slightly increasing. There are fewer hunters which could result in less competition and improved odds. Better technology and information may also play a part in that.

[JimmyHoffa]

I am surprised that the overall harvest rates have been flat or slightly increasing. There are fewer hunters which could result in less competition and improved odds. Better technology and information may also play a part in that.

Maybe the increase in antlerless opportunities in deer areas or in the form of special permits can be keeping harvest levels near flat.  I hear of fewer animals taken in the mountains and hills, but more and more in the lowlands and backyards.

[Bob33]

I am surprised that the overall harvest rates have been flat or slightly increasing. There are fewer hunters which could result in less competition and improved odds. Better technology and information may also play a part in that.

Maybe the increase in antlerless opportunities in deer areas or in the form of special permits can be keeping harvest levels near flat.  I hear of fewer animals taken in the mountains and hills, but more and more in the lowlands and backyards.

That could be although special permits wouldn't be included; these are general season numbers only.

[bearpaw]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

[Bob33]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

[bearpaw]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.

[idahohuntr]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.

My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order.  The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago.  When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! 

[Dan-o]

Thanks to those of you who posted the data.

Very insightful.

 

[JimmyHoffa]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.

My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order.  The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago.  When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! 

I was trying to connect the point on your graph with the implementation of tree farm permits (on the bigger farms).

[bearpaw]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.

My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order.  The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago.  When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! 

I was trying to connect the point on your graph with the implementation of tree farm permits (on the bigger farms).

  I think reduced access explains it...

[huntnphool]

General season harvest stats, 1997-2017

That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.

1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.

(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)

Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.

My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order.  The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago.  When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! 

 The season was longer and didn't concentrate all of them into the same week.

[jackelope]

30,000 less hunters is a huge number.

[meatwhack]

What this graph shows is that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the animals harvested. That’s held true for a long time.

[Skyvalhunter]

And those 10% hunt private property?

[bobcat]

What this graph shows is that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the animals harvested. That’s held true for a long time.

I don't see how you can get that out of the data provided. To me it shows that on average, a hunter kills a deer about once every 4 to 5 years.

[meatwhack]

Yeah 90% of hunters kill deer every 5 years or so while 10% of the same guys kill deer every year.

[jackelope]

And those 10% hunt private property?

Lots of hunters in Washington hunt private ground. Timber companies, etc. It is what it is. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

[Rainier10]

I think I am in that 10% that get deer and elk pretty regularly.  I would say that 90% of the deer and elk that I shoot are on public land, the other 10% are on private land that is open to anyone (timber company land that you don't need a pass or permit for).  My kids are in that 10% as well.  Their ratio is about 50/50 on public versus private.  The private that they have hunted is land that you actually have to ask permission for but even that isn't all that tough to ask.

[meatwhack]

What I was trying to point out was that even with decreasing hunter numbers the harvest will stay similar because those 10% that harvest the majority of critters are still hunting.

[X-Force]

What I was trying to point out was that even with decreasing hunter numbers the harvest will stay similar because those 10% that harvest the majority of critters are still hunting.

Why would that be?

You would have to assume that the 10% of hunters who are successful are continuing to hunt and that only the people who cant kill anything are the ones dropping out.


Harvest stay reactively steady across the board because game managers look at carrying capacity, habitat, herd population and they want X number of animals harvested a year.
Harvest of Cougars hasn't gone down since California outlawed hunting it has stayed relatively the same because game managers need cougar numbers down to reduce conflict (predation permits, government hunters, etc.)

[meatwhack]

What have game managers done then in the last 20 years to keep up with the changing dynamics of a heard?  I haven’t seen season dates change at all in that time other than when they roll the dates back for their reset. I’d say overall herd numbers in most areas are down due mainly to predators and the lack of them being properly managed but the deer harvest numbers simply show people are still killing the same number of deer.

[Rainier10]

Just a few years ago they extended the modern firearm deer season by at least two days.  As I recall there were quite a few hunters on here that posted success photos in those last two extended days of the season.

The best way that they can control population is through special permits.  Fluctuations in the number of antlerless tags given out.  Increase tags when they need to thin the herd and decrease tags when the herd is at or below objective levels.

There is actually a long list of adjustments that they have made over the years so I won't name them all but they do it and they do it regularly.

[meatwhack]

You’re correct I forgot the addition of the couple days at the end of general season for most east side hunts. To me that would suggest they felt the population was doing well which from what I’ve seen from 30 years or so of experience in some of the areas isn’t true. A lot of areas have seen drastic reductions in deer numbers but that’s just what I’ve noticed not anything scientific.

[X-Force]

special permits
shifting units from permit only to OTC
adding or eliminating late season hunting
adding or reducing antlerless harvest

Just this year WDFW cut antlerless moose harvest way back by eliminating antlerless tags and eliminating the any moose and making it bull only. WDFW also wanted to eliminate OTC archery antlerless elk hunting in the colockum, hunters complained and now we have a split season.

If you don't see managers doing something its because you don't care to look.

Predators are an issue but encroachment on habitat and forestry practices are the number one issue.

Its hard to have good forestry practices when logging has the threat of lawsuits and other practices (controlled burns, invasive species eradication, habitat restoration, etc.) are in the same budge as wild land fire suppression.

For habitat to improve a different budge/revenue stream will need to be found to deal with fire related issues.

[Rainier10]

You’re correct I forgot the addition of the couple days at the end of general season for most east side hunts. To me that would suggest they felt the population was doing well which from what I’ve seen from 30 years or so of experience in some of the areas isn’t true. A lot of areas have seen drastic reductions in deer numbers but that’s just what I’ve noticed not anything scientific.

I hear ya on that.  I often question what they do and why they do it.  They are pretty open about it if asked.  Do I agree with the explanation or reasoning?  Not always but at least I know what they were basing their decision on.

I went to one of the town hall meetings in Federal Way years ago.  Dave Ware was there and a guy took a petition to him about elk hunting in a certain gmu and how he wanted the season changed and he had hundreds of signatures agreeing with his position.  Dave listened intently, asked a few questions and then asked if he could have a copy of the signatures and petition.  The guy said no problem and gave him the copy.  He then assured Dave that they were real signatures.  Dave said he didn't doubt that at all.  He said he was just going to take a random sampling of the names, punch them into the WDFW system and make sure that they had purchased a hunting license and specifically an elk tag in the past.  No point in changing a season for people that don't even hunt.  He was really looking out for us as hunters was my impression.  I know Dave Ware gets a bad wrap on here but that is one example that I saw personally that made me think they do have the hunter's interest in mind when making decisions.

FYI the guy started stumbling on his words and said well these are people that live in the area so they know best even if they don't hunt.  Pretty sure Dave was spot on with his thought of verifying who was on that petition.

[meatwhack]

I also want to say I’m not ragging on F&G for how they manage or the decisions they make I’m just throwing out what I’ve observed over the years.