Picking a side of the state for deer hunting

[Karl Blanchard]

Picking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option.  That's just silliness.  And I'm a mule deer freak.

[grundy53]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Rainier10]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.

I guess I am not sure what the question is.  I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone.  If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system.  There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.

[Rainier10]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Picking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option.  That's just silliness.  And I'm a mule deer freak.

I totally get it.  There are a ton of people up here from California.  Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California.  People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.

I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it.  People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust.  "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?"  Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.

Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.

[ljsommer]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.

I guess I am not sure what the question is.  I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone.  If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system.  There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.

I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?

[Ghost Hunter]

I don't think moving a few plumbers to Wyoming is going to change stats much for either state.

[Karl Blanchard]

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.

[Rainier10]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.

I guess I am not sure what the question is.  I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone.  If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system.  There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.

I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?

I didn't say or think that open season for all is what is going on.  I think that they are trying to manage people, wildlife and habitat.  People is the tough one and there are way more people in this state than some of the other states.

How bad does it have to get?  I guess I am not sure.  Do I harvest a deer every year?  No.  Do I harvest one 8 out of 10 years? Yes.    Could I harvest one every year in the current format?  Probably.
Is that dire in my mind? No.

[idahohuntr]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Picking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option.  That's just silliness.  And I'm a mule deer freak.

I totally get it.  There are a ton of people up here from California.  Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California.  People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.

I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it.  People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust.  "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?"  Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.

Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.

I don't see a connection to other states here...were talking about how to manage hunting quality in Washington. 

Its really a quality vs quantity discussion - and I get there are folks who lean more one way vs. the other.  I'd prefer higher quality experiences in Washington and I think that is best achieved by more regulated tags.  Fewer hunters and lower annual harvest = when you do get a tag there are less people hunting and in many instances more and/or bigger deer to be hunted.

There are many factors that effect deer populations and they have been discussed thoroughly on this site - but managing hunter harvest is one of the easiest, surest, and quickest ways to achieve increases in deer numbers in many units. 

[KFhunter]

Making all deer hunting draw only will kill hunter recruitment. 

Most new hunters go out with someone, get introduced and go a while without getting one. 

Making it draw only will make that first deer too big of a step for most, yes it would be great for us already hunting and willing to submit draws, but over all the amount of hunters would decline drastically.



Its one thing to go to walmart and get a license and tag, it's something else entirely to log into a website and fumble through a draw system. 

[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?

[ljsommer]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.

I guess I am not sure what the question is.  I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone.  If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system.  There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.

I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?

I didn't say or think that open season for all is what is going on.  I think that they are trying to manage people, wildlife and habitat.  People is the tough one and there are way more people in this state than some of the other states.

How bad does it have to get?  I guess I am not sure.  Do I harvest a deer every year?  No.  Do I harvest one 8 out of 10 years? Yes.    Could I harvest one every year in the current format?  Probably.
Is that dire in my mind? No.

But that's exactly what's going on. If (for some imaginary reason) people from other states decided to flood WA and buy OTC tags, we'd sell a million tags without asking why. We'd unleash hundreds of thousands of hunters to overharvest the herds. There's no limit, there's no science, and frankly there's little opportunity.

I am a new hunter, I may never see success - I accept that. But to me, I can go walk around in the woods for free. I can even carry a rifle if I choose to. I can do it during hunting season, without purchasing a tag. So what is the WDFW selling me? The "opportunity"? Well, that suggests that the woods have deer in them. Otherwise they're selling me nothing.
Let's imagine that for the last few years instead of buying tags and walking around in the woods with a rifle, I just saved my money (bought no tags) and walked around in the woods with a rifle. The only difference is the chance to pull the trigger. If you remove that chance because the deer populations are so low, then we're being swindled.

Selling an unlimited amount of tags to an unlimited amount of hunters is bad policy. I am new enough at this sport that I could realistically just throw my hands in the air in frustration and walk away and go find another past-time. I would think that some of you lifelong hunters would have more concern.

[Rainier10]

Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there?  If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Picking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option.  That's just silliness.  And I'm a mule deer freak.

I totally get it.  There are a ton of people up here from California.  Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California.  People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.

I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it.  People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust.  "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?"  Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.

Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.

I don't see a connection to other states here...were talking about how to manage hunting quality in Washington. 

Its really a quality vs quantity discussion - and I get there are folks who lean more one way vs. the other.  I'd prefer higher quality experiences in Washington and I think that is best achieved by more regulated tags.  Fewer hunters and lower annual harvest = when you do get a tag there are less people hunting and in many instances more and/or bigger deer to be hunted.

There are many factors that effect deer populations and they have been discussed thoroughly on this site - but managing hunter harvest is one of the easiest, surest, and quickest ways to achieve increases in deer numbers in many units.

If this is the goal then yes what you suggest is the way to do it.  People just need to realize that if they want quality there is going to be less opportunity.  Plus you need to define what quality is.  To some quality is not having other hunters in the area, that is easy limit tags to very few.  To others quality is trophy animals, that one is tougher.  For that you have to limit hunters but also work on a bunch more factors like predator reduction, habitat improvement and reduce other factors that are limiting trophy animals(tribal harvest).

[Karl Blanchard]

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.

[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.