East Side Elk Solution

[colockumelk]

This is completely hypothetical. 

Colockumelk's plan
If it went to permit only they could give out about 4x more permits because non of the spikes would be getting killed.  Currently in the 300 series GMU's they give out about 850 branch bull permits throughout the three user groups.  On average about 900 spikes are killed every year.  With an average of about 33% successrate on branch bulls this means they could give out an additional 2700 branch bull permits a year.  So 850+2700=3550.  Which is about 4.18 times more permits.  You would get drawn every three years and when you get drawn could enjoy longer hunting seasons in better times of the year.

Buckrubs plan
His plan relies on a general season 5pt minimum plan.  In order to keep harvest numbers in check his plan would rely on keeping the seasons short.  Since over half of all animals that are killed are killed on opening weekend this would make the general 5 pt minimum season about 2 or 3 days.  But you could hunt every year and could hunt branch bulls every year. 

[gasman]

Sorry, but 









Can't we all agree to disagree.

There is no one solution to make everyone happy.

[colockumelk]

I agree but it's fun to debate and argue.

[gasman]

I agree but it's fun to debate and argue.

This subject is like a train wreck, I just can't keep my eyes off it. 

[bowhunterforever]

Permit only would be way better, you would have a quality hunt with less hunters to compete with! A 2 or 3 year wait for a tag would be well worth it!

[Colville]

Permit only would be way better, you would have a quality hunt with less hunters to compete with! A 2 or 3 year wait for a tag would be well worth it!

\

This is not a fact whatsoever. See my post in the general forum thread on this subject.  There were 25,000 hunters in 200/300 gmu's last year. There were 30,000 elk tags purchased in this state that either didn't report, or reported not having hunted after buying a tag. Some of those simply didn't hunt because they changed plans. Many, a large many myself included, put in for tags and when they couldn't draw, they didn't hunt spikes. Let's say 2/3rds of them put in for tags and opted not to spike hunt when not drawn. That's 20,000 hunters putting in for tags, but then not hunting.

75k hunters hunted last year for elk. 25k of them in 200/300 gmu's. If we assume 1/3 of the people who put in for tags but didn't hunt were trying to get 200/300 gmu permits .33 x 20,000 = 6600. So, 25,000 who hunted 200/300 Plus 6600 that wanted to and didn't means there's a demand for about 32,000 hunters to hunt in those units. Add up the permits suggested to the demand and you are NOT drawing every 2 or 3 years.

Also, the 33% success rate on bulls is today's success rate based on today's branch bull population/density. That rate would correctly increase as the density of branch bulls increases in the same areas. For instance, assume it was draw only and no spikes are shot. If there had been 850 additional 1x2, 2x2 and 2x3 elk in the same gmu's last year hundreds of them would have been killed by the tag holders last year. Without adding any additional tags. Why? Density. More bulls means easier to find bulls so the success rate increases mitigating the number of tags you can increase. So in the suggested tag allocation you have to account for a better hunter success rate.

There is simply no basis for saying hunters would be able to hunt bulls every couple years, it's factually false.

[colockumelk]

Colville that's why we have a preference point system.  Your assumptions are just that.  Assumptions.  My points are drawn from facts and statistics.  I highly doubt more people would put in for permits if it went permit only than they do now.  That didn't happen in Oregon and it wouldn't happen here. 

If there are 3.42X more permits given out and on average it takes 6 years for a rifle hunter to get drawn then divide that by 3.42 and that's how often you could expect to get drawn. Hint the number is 1.75. 

[270Shooter]

There are too many hunters in washington. Plain and simple. I think permit only is the only way to get to hunt big bulls, but not every year obviously. But to tell you the truth, I want to hunt every year. I dont care if its spike only, atleast Im out there in the field.

[Colville]

Clockum, 25000 people hunted 200 and 300 series gmu's and thousands more put in for apps, weren't drawn but wanted to hunt there. IF you put all those GMU's into draw only for all tags then for your analysis to be correct, about 15,000 hunters will have to quit hunting elk. Rather than do what I would assume, put in for a cow/bull tag so that they "might" hunt elk.

On what basis do you assume more than half of all hunters will hang up elk hunting rather than apply for the tags that are available? It appears 32,000 wanted to hunt there and there'd not be enough tags to get everyone a hunt in 2 to 3 years. You keep comparing people putting in for tags now and in a tag only option as comparable. Well people don't put in for tags now because they CAN HUNT anyway. If they can't hunt at all except by putting in for the tag, then what? Again, thousands would have to just quit elk hunting these GMU's for the math to work out.

[gasman]

There are too many hunters in washington. Plain and simple. I think permit only is the only way to get to hunt big bulls, but not every year obviously. But to tell you the truth, I want to hunt every year. I dont care if its spike only, atleast Im out there in the field.

 

[colockumelk]

Colville actually 27,000 hunters on average hunt elk in the 300 series GMUs.  Also where do you get your numbers on this huge increase of people who would put in for special permits?  Everyone I know that hunts elk puts in for special permits so I doubt the numbers would go up.  You are just speculating here and giving out false information.  We all know what happens when we just assume things.

My numbers on the other hand are based on how many people on average apply for special permits (which by the way are right around that 27,000 mark).  My numbers are also based on the average harvest reports for both special and general hunts.  My info is fact based. Your's is just speculation on what you THINK might happen. 

Based on data and facts that I have compiled from the WDFW website, if it did go to permit only then yes I GUARANTEE YOU that even as a rifle hunter you would get drawn every three years and if you had a B tag system for cows it would be at least every other year.  I have no clue where you get this every ten years BS but it is just not true and you are just pulling numbers out of your assumptions. 

If you compile some data and research things like I have done then I will listen.  I don't mind people with differing opinions I love debate that is why I come here, but when you spout off things as facts when you have no proof to back them up then I get upset. You can say I think this would happen or I believe this would happen but when you strait up say I'm dead wrong without any facts of your own to back you up then I get upset.   Where is your references show me links etc.  Do you have any?

  If anything I think that the numbers of hunters that would put in would decrease.  And you know what I'm fine with that.  Personally about a quarter of the people that hunt scare the hell out of me and I wish that they'd stay home.  I know people will jump on me for that last sentance but it's true. 

[colockumelk]

There are too many hunters in washington. Plain and simple. I think permit only is the only way to get to hunt big bulls, but not every year obviously. But to tell you the truth, I want to hunt every year. I dont care if its spike only, atleast Im out there in the field.

 

I agree that's why it should be permit only in the Colockum to rebuild it for three or four years and why it should stay status quo in the Yakima herds.  But it would be nice to hunt big bulls every other year.  Crap it might be every year for some areas for the bowhunters like me. 

[Colville]

Clockum, what you haven't addressed is:

All the hunters who hunt every year, who don't apply for permits. Now those that don't apply for tags MUST apply or quit hunting in your plan. I see no allocation of increased demand based on those that to date are satisfied hunting spikes and not putting in for permits. Those people aren't in the permit stats anyplace and either they'll have to quit hunting or you haven't given them a value in the numbers.

Here's where I get my numbers. 2007 hunt reports: All weapons by region.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/2007/db/elk_region-all.php

However, looking at the gross stats of hunters from the same rept:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/2007/elk_general.htm

You see the discrepancy between tags sold and hunters in the second linK? Lots of hunters after not being drawn sit out.  Bottom line, at minimum you have 25000 people who hunted in '07 in 200/300 gmu's. There's a huge number of hunters not hunting on a permit of any kind. Those people in some of your assumptions simply have to stop hunting. Whereas I assume they'll all put in for a permit so they don't have to stop. Look at those numbers and tell me why 25000 people who hunted elk in '07, a fraction of which were on permit, and with many who bought a tag (see second link) who sat out after not drawing any tag who are still in that pool how to get to hunting bulls every 2 years if they all still desire to hunt?

The total elk harvest was 1483 bulls and cows combined in those GMU's. Bull harvest was 899,  The total # of huntable bulls doesn't increase by changing how and when we hunt them, just the dynamics of what age class is being shot. So, there's about 1500 harvestable animals and about 900 bulls, though in your proposal we'd shift the age class of those animals to 2 year olds from spikes. Cow take would remain static.

900 bulls, 500 cows give or take. 25000 hunted for them in 07 and at least another 6000 put in for tags and didn't hunt at all when not drawing a tag. So there were 32,000 hunters going after the pool. The math is as it is, we aren't breeding any more animals in your proposal, just changing their age before they are shot. With 32k hunters with 200/300 interest we aren't going to hunt 900 bulls every 2 or 3 years no matter how you slice it. We'll just be killing a lot more 2 and 3 year old bulls instead of spikes. I see a shift in age class and a stasis in the opportunity to hunt them.

BTW. I'm completely impressed and pleased with you and your drive and commitment. I can't express enough my thanks for you taking your personal time and money to pursue this. My arguments aren't about philosophy per se, but about methods and math. Keep up the fight. If for no other reason if you can convince me and others with our concerns that you are right it forwards your cause. Best wishes sincerely!

[colockumelk]

Colville after reading my last post I realize I was kind of a Dick.  So I'm apologize for that.  Thank you for taking the high road and not being a dick back.  After your last post I know understand what you were getting at.  And thankyou for citing your sources.  I was a little upset because there is another on here that constantly calls me a liar and that my facts are all jacked up but has yet to give me any facts of his own, just opinions and assumptions.  So sorry I mistook what you were saying.  LIke I said I now understand what you were referring to in that there is more people putting in for special permits than actually hunt.  Here's my counter argument.

My estimates on how often you would get drawn are not based on how many people hunt.  They are based on the link at the bottom of this post.  This link shows how often on average it takes to get drawn for each special permit.  Since under this "hypothetical plan" there would be 3.42 times more branch permits given out one could assume that you would get drawn about 3.42 times more often. 

You say if it went to permit only more people would put in for special permits because some do not right now.  That is up for debate because I could not find a link that shows how many people applied for special permits.  I know that there were 55,764 hunt choices picked in the 300 series GMU's but it doesn't say the number of actual people who put in for those choices. 

But lets say more people do put in for special permits than people currently do.  I think that this increase in people putting in for special permits would be equalized by an equal if not greater number of people choosing to either hunt on the west side, the Blues or just quit hunting elk altogether.  I think on the exact number of people who would now put in for the 300series GMU special permits is a debate we can go round and round on.  But at least I now know where you are coming from.

Like I said before I think people would get drawn alot more often simply because there would be alot more permits given out.  WHich the biologists could increase or decrease based off of harvest percentages if they go up or down etc.

Colville I appreciate your cool head and also for posting facts and giving a well thought out argument.  Thank you.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/specperm/elk.htm - Selection stats.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/harvest/2007/permits/elk.htm- special applications.

[colockumelk]

Mostly I just want to close as many roads as I can down.  Whether we like it or not unless true spike only works (which is stupid and wont work) then it will go to permit only.