wdfw

[gottatree]

We need to manage the game for the peolple who are the one's paying for there managemant. The King county agenda is shoved down our throats. Washington worries to much about offending the enviromentalist's. The WDFW could make more money if we managed wildlife for quality animals.   

[colockumelk]

for one the ridiculous prices for tags. also i don't understand why westside elk benefit more from a 3 pt min. restriction and eastside elk benefit from spike only restrictions. both are supposedly  in place to keep the herds healthy one however generates more income in the form of special app fees.

The reason they have different antler restrictions is because of the type of terrain.  On the West Side the bulls have more escapement because there's alot more private property and the woods are so thick.  So having a rifle isn't that big of an advantage over a ML or a bow.  The bulls can take one step and their gone. 

Out east it's fairly wide open.  Guys can shoot pretty far with a rifle so the bulls would just get decimated if it was 3pt minimum.  No matter how smart a bull is with as many people as there are hunting for them they would not stand a chance.  They may escape one guy but get bounced into another guy that's 300yds away.  During rifle season you can hear guys empty their rifles at them, reload and then empty their rifles again. n For those that don't believe me look at how it was pre-1994.

 Before 1994 it was any bull and you never saw any bulls over 3 1/2 year old 5 pts.  Because none of them lived long enough to get old.  They all got killed during the season. 

And yes I'm sure that the additional funds from special permits has something to do with it as well. 

[muzzleman]

For a under funded agency I think they do fine. 

[Wacenturion]

for one the ridiculous prices for tags. also i don't understand why westside elk benefit more from a 3 pt min. restriction and eastside elk benefit from spike only restrictions. both are supposedly  in place to keep the herds healthy one however generates more income in the form of special app fees.

The reason they have different antler restrictions is because of the type of terrain.  On the West Side the bulls have more escapement because there's alot more private property and the woods are so thick.  So having a rifle isn't that big of an advantage over a ML or a bow.  The bulls can take one step and their gone. 

Out east it's fairly wide open.  Guys can shoot pretty far with a rifle so the bulls would just get decimated if it was 3pt minimum.  No matter how smart a bull is with as many people as there are hunting for them they would not stand a chance.  They may escape one guy but get bounced into another guy that's 300yds away.  During rifle season you can hear guys empty their rifles at them, reload and then empty their rifles again. n For those that don't believe me look at how it was pre-1994.

 Before 1994 it was any bull and you never saw any bulls over 3 1/2 year old 5 pts.  Because none of them lived long enough to get old.  They all got killed during the season. 

And yes I'm sure that the additional funds from special permits has something to do with it as well. 

So before 1994 people only killed 3 1/2 year old 5 points?  Maybe in the Clockum......but I doubt that.  I seem to remember that every year there were some larger bulls taken in eastern Washington.  So the alternative now is we get to hunt spikes instead of 3 1/2 year old 5 pts?  That is unless you draw a permit.....maybe once in your lifetime for a trophy bull.  That's the exact reason I don't hunt elk in eastern Wa. anymore.  Not that good of a tradeoff in my opinion.  Seems to me we had more elk hunters buying tags and hunting elk and still had nice animals taken even with the pressure back then.  Now...less elk hunters, fewer big bulls taken, and less opportunity....to take a big bull.  Vodoo management??

If it were 5 pt. or better or even 6 pt. or better, I would be back at them.....just my opinion.

[provider]

With 7 million people in the state as someone mentioned before and the acreage to support far fewer hunters than we actually have, I am not sure I know how to help them improve.  Could they be better?  Yes  How?  I am not sure. 

i am definitely not satisfied, but I think the task would be far easier in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming where you get to control harvest by limiting the number of tags sold to non-residents.  They have such a significantly smaller human population, which allows for higher carrying capacity on the same amount of acres.  And some of these states are far larger in acreage.  Our human population in WA creates to much infrastructure that erodes the carrying capacity of the land.  roads, cities, and other infrastructure all limit the amount of land available for animals. 

In WA - anyone can buy a tag over the counter.

C'mon guys, where's all the staunch supporters of increased hunter recruitment?  Where's all the folks constantly saying we must have more of us?  This would be a good time to defend your position.  The math doesn't add up.     

[hoytem]

for one the ridiculous prices for tags. also i don't understand why westside elk benefit more from a 3 pt min. restriction and eastside elk benefit from spike only restrictions. both are supposedly in place to keep the herds healthy one however generates more income in the form of special app fees.

The reason they have different antler restrictions is because of the type of terrain.  On the West Side the bulls have more escapement because there's alot more private property and the woods are so thick.  So having a rifle isn't that big of an advantage over a ML or a bow.  The bulls can take one step and their gone. 

Out east it's fairly wide open.  Guys can shoot pretty far with a rifle so the bulls would just get decimated if it was 3pt minimum.  No matter how smart a bull is with as many people as there are hunting for them they would not stand a chance.  They may escape one guy but get bounced into another guy that's 300yds away.  During rifle season you can hear guys empty their rifles at them, reload and then empty their rifles again. n For those that don't believe me look at how it was pre-1994.

 Before 1994 it was any bull and you never saw any bulls over 3 1/2 year old 5 pts.  Because none of them lived long enough to get old.  They all got killed during the season. 

And yes I'm sure that the additional funds from special permits has something to do with it as well. 

my entire family used to hunt eastern wa and get one or two bulls a year, some decent 6's and some young 5's but nothing smaller and where we use to hunt there were not other hunters around pushing elk. since the rule change everyone except me has hunted idaho with a biologist from wdfw. He has admitted to the fact it is for funds alone regardless of what they will tell the public. The sad truth is tags are going to continue to go up in price and they will look for any additional possibilities of more income. That being said they also want to lessen the amount of hunters in the state because there are far too many.

[WAcoueshunter]

I think they do a good job for what they have to work with.  You can't please everyone all the time.  Just look at these posts and some of the other threads we've had recently.  Some think they need more money, some think the tag prices are too high, some think we should sell out to the highest bidder (see Utah and their 500+ "governor" tags) to raise funds, some want to lock out NR's and the revenue from their 10x tag prices, some want to manage for trophies, some want to hunt bucks and bulls every year (see uproar about Swakane OTC), etc., etc.  Ultimately, I think they do a pretty good job given the limited public land, number of animals, population, and budget. 

I apply/hunt in several other states, and I can come up with a bitch about every one of them.  AZ - all draw, so maybe you'll get to hunt now and then.  NM - no bonus points, so who knows when you'll get to hunt.  ID - no BP's, and OTC rifle elk and deer means fewer trophies.  UT - good luck ever drawing a good elk or deer tag, plus they sell out to the rich.  CO - land of the raghorn.  WY and MT seem pretty good, but they also don't have squat for population and have a ton of public land and animals.

Given our limiting factors here, I understand and am okay with my opportunities.  Between the population and limited public lands, I'm very thankful for our wilderness areas.  If nothing else, they allow you to work your tail off and get away from the pumpkins and quads on an annual basis.   

[Aperson]

I see how other states I hunt in are ran and look at there quality and seasons. I just wonder why we can not be somewhere close to them.Then I rember King county runs the state.

i think they could do a better job at helping to take care of the animals...i mean, they keep telling us that we need to in hunters ed, but, i haven't seen any of them doing anything out there yet... just my 

[Wacenturion]

Wacoueshunter.............sorry, but have to disagree with you.  That's wishful thinkibng on your part.  The Wildlife Mangement Program in WDFW is a picture of mis-management.  They could not manage themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Oh...and although the amount of money figures in, they waste a lot of it by internal politics, contol of positions and dollars and idiotic approaches to management.

[Little Dave]

There's plenty room for improvement.  I would like to see the department reorganized to reflect more scientific principle than political whim.  Particularly because political whim is not really working well for our state these last few years.

[BULLZ-i]

missed the opp to vote on the poll, but still would say

HELL NO!

[DOUBLELUNG]

With 7 million people in the state as someone mentioned before and the acreage to support far fewer hunters than we actually have, I am not sure I know how to help them improve.  Could they be better?  Yes  How?  I am not sure. 

i am definitely not satisfied, but I think the task would be far easier in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming where you get to control harvest by limiting the number of tags sold to non-residents.  They have such a significantly smaller human population, which allows for higher carrying capacity on the same amount of acres.  And some of these states are far larger in acreage.  Our human population in WA creates to much infrastructure that erodes the carrying capacity of the land.  roads, cities, and other infrastructure all limit the amount of land available for animals. 

In WA - anyone can buy a tag over the counter.

C'mon guys, where's all the staunch supporters of increased hunter recruitment?  Where's all the folks constantly saying we must have more of us?  This would be a good time to defend your position.  The math doesn't add up.     

The best thing for US is less hunters.  Happy?

[Little Dave]

This state would justify introduction of wolves due to low hunter recruitment.

[provider]

Happy?

Can't get the smile off my face.

[Wacenturion]

A whole lot of comments here about politics, the Governor, residents of Seattle, etc., somehow dictating policies and mismanagement within WDFW. 

Although there is some direction from any or all of the above on various specific issues...i.e. cougars....Indian hunting an fishing...the general management of game species...or should i say the general scheme of management of game species and non management of some in that group...upland game for one, is a direct result of the opinions and personal beliefs of those who manage the various programs within Wildlife Management, plain and simple.  Just want to make that clear.  Some of you are letting the real culprits off the hook......FACT!