Picking a side of the state for deer hunting

[Rainier10]

No what i want is sound logical wildlife management.  That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere. 

The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy.  To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.

Exactly this is a choice everyone has.

Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.

Serious question.  Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years?  How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag?  I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that.  But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?

I'd go 10 for 10 sir but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource.  Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's.  I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.

Exactly.  The last two years I haven't taken a mule deer myself.  I am confident I could have but rather enjoyed my time in the woods.  I did help other new hunters harvest deer and show them the ropes.  At this point in my hunting life that is really much more rewarding than harvesting a deer myself.

I have purchased 1,500 acres of prime mule deer country.  My buddies son shot a mule deer on it this year.  One deer taken all year on that 1,500 acres.  In the past there have been 15-20 deer taken off that same 1,500 acres.  Once the population rebounds a bit I will probably allow more hunting but for now I am doing what I can to help it rebound.  That same ground is elk winter range.  Two elk taken off it this year.

[Rainier10]

No what i want is sound logical wildlife management.  That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere. 

The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy.  To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.

Exactly this is a choice everyone has.

Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.

Serious question.  Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years?  How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag?  I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that.  But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?

I'd go 10 for 10 sir but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource.  Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's.  I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.

Uhh, yes, this is also the reason I don't kill deer. That's exactly the reason.
 

I got lucky my first year hunting and shot a decent 4x4 mule deer.  Next year I got lucky and shot a cow elk my first year hunting them.  Then went to archery and hit a dry spell.  Put in tons of miles, learned tons of new areas and tactics.  Now I can shoot a deer almost every year if I want to and shoot an elk every other year on average.  Put in your time and I am sure you will start filling tags.

I get back to camp at dark every hunt.  Guys are three beers into the evening when I get back and saw nothing.  Well they weren't out there long enough, I saw tons of animals.

I also adapt.  I am not hunting the same areas for deer and elk that I hunted 10, 5 or even 3 years ago.  I am hunting close but slightly different areas.  Going to the same spot each year because you saw animals there 5 years ago isn't always the answer.

[ljsommer]

No what i want is sound logical wildlife management.  That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere. 

The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy.  To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.

Exactly this is a choice everyone has.

Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.

Serious question.  Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years?  How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag?  I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that.  But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?

I'd go 10 for 10 sir but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource.  Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's.  I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.

Uhh, yes, this is also the reason I don't kill deer. That's exactly the reason.
 

I got lucky my first year hunting and shot a decent 4x4 mule deer.  Next year I got lucky and shot a cow elk my first year hunting them.  Then went to archery and hit a dry spell.  Put in tons of miles, learned tons of new areas and tactics.  Now I can shoot a deer almost every year if I want to and shoot an elk every other year on average.  Put in your time and I am sure you will start filling tags.

I get back to camp at dark every hunt.  Guys are three beers into the evening when I get back and saw nothing.  Well they weren't out there long enough, I saw tons of animals.

I also adapt.  I am not hunting the same areas for deer and elk that I hunted 10, 5 or even 3 years ago.  I am hunting close but slightly different areas.  Going to the same spot each year because you saw animals there 5 years ago isn't always the answer.

You know it's interesting you say that (the last sentence) because I keep being told this: "Just keep hunting and learning the same area" and the engineer in me has me asking myself "Yeah but what if there's no animals there?"
It seems to me that consistency only matters if it's effective consistency - hunting the same patch of barren earth for 20 years won't get you success. And therein lies my problem: Hunting was ripped out of my family when my dad bailed, and I am left to figure it out on my own with no friends or family who hunt.
And go ahead and guess how forthcoming hunters are with their hunting locations.

(now THIS is definitely a derail, so probably don't reply to this! Better to keep the thread on-topic regarding east/west)

[Rainier10]

PM inbound tonight LJ so we can get this thread back ontrack.  I think the poll and original post are a great topic to discuss.

[ljsommer]

I've definitely said way, way way more than I should have so I apologize for any derails.
Ultimately, I have no experience and no knowledge and I'll defer to the more senior members here on what's right. I just want to hope that one day this ludicrously expensive and frustrating hobby ends in success for me so that my sons don't view their dad as a failure at this thing he works so hard at.

[Colville]

Aside from the carping, what does the data show?  Now we've had a couple bad winters and fires so I expect the 17-18 numbers will be lower, but what's the history say?

Year     Hunters          Deer Killed     %success
2016   115,901           31.3K              28.9%
2015   121,343           35.4K              31.3%
2014   120,488           32.2K              29.2%
2013   123,982           31.0K              27.2%
2012   120,082           31.1K              28.2%
2011   125,537           26.6K              23.2%
2010   131,133           30.7K              25.5%
2009   136,859           30.9K              24.7%
2008   144,000           31.5K              24.3%
2007   165,699           33.0K              27.2%

Now the deer killed includes doe.  But the bottom line here is that take hasn't gone up with an average deer harvest about about 31k.  Hunters are more efficient now, fewer hunters kill the same amount of deer with 20% fewer hunters.  There's no new slaughter going on and the up and down of fires/winter are the worst of it.  2017 and 2018 May be uglier between wolves and winter in the NE. 

The only trend here.... hunters are vanishing.  You won't need to chose a side of the state to solve a problem. Hunter recruitment is garbage and looks like it's not going to get better, fewer hunters will mean more opportunity. Winters and predator management not withstanding.

[ljsommer]

Aside from the carping, what does the data show?  Now we've had a couple bad winters and fires so I expect the 17-18 numbers will be lower, but what's the history say?

Year     Hunters          Deer Killed     %success
2016   115,901           31.3K              28.9%
2015   121,343           35.4K              31.3%
2014   120,488           32.2K              29.2%
2013   123,982           31.0K              27.2%
2012   120,082           31.1K              28.2%
2011   125,537           26.6K              23.2%
2010   131,133           30.7K              25.5%
2009   136,859           30.9K              24.7%
2008   144,000           31.5K              24.3%
2007   165,699           33.0K              27.2%

Now the deer killed includes doe.  But the bottom line here is that take hasn't gone up with an average deer harvest about about 31k.  Hunters are more efficient now, fewer hunters kill the same amount of deer with 20% fewer hunters.  There's no new slaughter going on and the up and down of fires/winter are the worst of it.  2017 and 2018 May be uglier between wolves and winter in the NE. 

The only trend here.... hunters are vanishing.  You won't need to chose a side of the state to solve a problem. Hunter recruitment is garbage and looks like it's not going to get better, fewer hunters will mean more opportunity. Winters and predator management not withstanding.

I am a little confused on that last point, that fewer hunters means more opportunity. I see 33k deer killed with 165.7k hunters (2007), and 35.4k with 121k hunters (2015). Also is anyone else shocked at this success rate? I constantly look up GMU harvest success rates in just about every GMU in the entire state (since I don't know where the hell to hunt) and I am seeing more like 7-9% success rate, not anything bonkers like 30%. How the hell is anyone getting success rates that high?
Either something's fishy or I should just quit now.

Edit: Added years of data for clarity

[Colville]

ljsommer,  I can't attest to the math, but to say that this includes all units, all hunts, all hunting methods and includes Doe. 

We also have multi season permits now so that the same # of hunters can hunt more days and be more efficient.  I think the mutli season reflects the reduction in hunters rather than increase in deer numbers.  Buck success isn't at 30%.

[Rainier10]

ljsommer,  I can't attest to the math, but to say that this includes all units, all hunts, all hunting methods and includes Doe. 

We also have multi season permits now so that the same # of hunters can hunt more days and be more efficient.  I think the mutli season reflects the reduction in hunters rather than increase in deer numbers.  Buck success isn't at 30%.

  That is taking all weapons seasons and special permits into account.  One thing that you notice is the number of deer harvested stays the same. That is because that is how many deer the game department wants harvested each year.  They change the season days and permit numbers based on success rates for each area and method to make sure that they are taking the amount of deer out of the population to maintain the herd, a healthy habitat and people conflicts(auto collisions and crop damage).

I do think if you had to choose a side you would see less opportunity on the east side, they would shorten seasons and lower permit numbers because too many people would be trying harder to fill their eastside tag.

I also think that you would see longer seasons and more permits on the west side because less people would be hunting on the west side.

Deer harvest numbers would stay the same and success would stay the same statewide.  You would have higher success rates on the west side and lower success rates on the eastside.

[blackveltbowhunter]

 

   Pressure will remain the same regardless of pick your side IF all that changes is pick a side, species, whatever.... pressure will remain the same statewide. It will simply be redistributed. Trying to predict how it is redistributed is a crap shoot at best.

 

[Stein]

One thing that you notice is the number of deer harvested stays the same. That is because that is how many deer the game department wants harvested each year.  They change the season days and permit numbers based on success rates for each area and method to make sure that they are taking the amount of deer out of the population to maintain the herd, a healthy habitat and people conflicts(auto collisions and crop damage).

There may be one of the big problems.  Over the last 10 years, WDFW hasn't seen anything that would cause them to increase or decrease the number of deer taken by hunters?  Or, would one argue they have the carrying capacity all figured out and perfectly balanced and just need to take the magical number every year to keep it right where they want it?

I think picking east or west wouldn't do much in terms of overall numbers killed, just more in some places and fewer in others.  I bet a big chunk of the hunters only hunt one side and do a single deer hunting trip a year.