Solutions seeking problems.

[Dman]

 OK, I'll say it a 3rd time and simplify it. Habitat loss is directly tied to the drop in hunter numbers.

 90-100,000 acres of habitat are lost annually in Washington to development today, 2007.

 This number has been increasing annually for decades and on the current pace, well double to 200,000 acres lost per year within 10-15 more years, roughly the size of the Vail and Snoqualmie tree farms combined, which can support approximately 5,000 hunter's per year. That 5,000 more hunter's by the year 2020 that will be out of a place to hunt. If your still not seeing it, I'm out of ammo on this one.....

[Dman]

 -I know some will ask again, 'what does habitat loss have to do with going to a primarily lottery based tag system?'. Everything. If we do not do more to restrict our hunts AND/OR reduce our population growth in this State soon, we will have less opportunity that you might think. just in the last five years, timberland's I've harvested three deer on have either sold, or eliminated their general season hunts. If these thing's haven't affected you personally yet, they will.

[Colville]

Dman, my whole point is that this hasn't been about best herd management practices, at least not in specific evidence. It's been about "I WANT". You want to hunt "mature" deer. You are willing to take my access/resource rights away to improve yours. You have yet to offer any scientific basis on why this is biologically needed as opposed to just fulfilling your management desires. I assume you do this because if you flat out said "I don't care if the herds can be managed just fine for opportunity, I want to hunt bigger deer and I don't care how many guys annual hunting I have to take away to get it." you know that simply wouldn't fly. So I have become accustomed to seeing pseudo science, anecdote and generalizations used to justify trophy management to those that want to hunt every year. I'm not meaning to single you out at all and I do think you are a sincere and passionate hunter but if you want me to give up on what I want, you're going to need to show me that it is needed to preserve herds in WA rather than to improve B&C scores.

Also Dman, the "where" is key to the "lost habitat". Not all habitat is the same. Not all is currently huntable, even if it is actually habitat. If you are right, where's the decline in deer numbers associated with the habitat loss and again... WHERE? Which GMU's? Is the whole state homogeneous and because areas x & y are under pressure the whole state needs a draw only? Again, you are using vast generalizations about 1 part of a multi variant model of populations and then using only your preferred solution without providing if there might be others. That's not good enough.

Bone, I have only the state's data to rely upon. I appreciate they can make mistakes but I'm not prepared to argue that the well considered opinions of a few hunters is a superior data pool to argue from. I'd accept another source other than the state but I don't know who's qualified to offer a scientific opinion, I'm all ears though.

[boneaddict]

Well, I call *censored* on number 1, that the population is at an alltime high.  Funny that I also have heard from the biologists themselves for three regions (North central, Central, and SE, that the populations are low, not to mention we all know about the Klick.   Maybe they made a typo and meant all time low.  You don't ahve to take my opinion for anything, just take a hike out there and tell me what you think. Not being a know at all, but I spend alot of time out there, ALL over this state, and can tell you what my findings are.  I'm doing photography at the same time the boys are out counting, even have participated with their countings a couple times.  I have connections with the boys that are flying and hear from them.  Its interesting to know what the boys in the field are syaing, compared to what the  report you guys are quoting from.

[Colville]

Hey bone, I am not knocking you as a source. Not at all. But if what you are saying is correct including those you are talking to, in the not distant future the report we are working from will be replaced by a new one pointing out some problems. I won't dispute that report either when it's here.

But, from the last set of data our herds weren't only not in bad shape they were on the upper end of good. They could come back some and be considered "ok". But the other side of that is not just knowing what the numbers are but what is driving them, hunters? Weather? Habitat? Predation? Then of course, what's the range of solutions. Is there only one? Draw only? I'm having a hard time with that and I'm not even seeing an effort to look at another solution, at least from Dman. Draw only everywhere is kind of the nuclear approach when I'm not convinced we can't be a little more precise in the bombing if in fact it's needed.

[huntnphool]

Down Cujo, nobody said it was at an all time high, Scott Fitkin is the N.Central biologist and he says the heard is at a 20 year high. Aint it great we live in a country where we can all have our own opinions and beliefs. No need to get all fired up Bone, we are just going by what the experts are saying. Colville was right, I too choose to listen to someone that makes a living doing what everyone else here does for recreation. The heard in the Methow is as numerous as any year I can remember, and I have been going there a long time;^)..................rf

[Dman]

 Over the course of the discussion, if you read the entire thread, as consensus of opinions including my own left the door open for some general season buck hunts to stay open, obviously you can't shut them down over night. You see the problem is, as you are forced with more permit hunts in the area's Bone and I have described, as well as other's, the remaining general season areas get more and more pressure, forcing yet more limited entry hunts in those areas as well, it's inevitable. This is why I'm adamant about land preservation as the number one resource for future hunting. If you read the latest issue's of Washington Fishing and Hunting news there are some direct quote's from WDFW personnel, stating that there is much "concern over dropping hunter numbers", as well as a regional WDFW Biologist assessment of all State deer GMU populations, ALL of which were noted to be decreasing, primarily due to habitat loss as a number one cause. Loss of winter range along the entire Cascade front for mule deer has been an issue for a long time. I really do believe -because I hunt there also, that the NE corner of the State is blessed with one of the lowest human populations, while having a ton of State land to hunt for the healthiest populations of game on the E. side. You probably have not noticed the issue's I'm talking about in your area nearly as much as say near; Winthrop, Chewuch, Ellensburg, Cle Elum, or the entire west side.

[huntnphool]

Hey Dman, you wrote "as you are forced with more permit hunts in the area's Bone and I have described, as well as other's, the remaining general season areas get more and more pressure, forcing yet more limited entry hunts in those areas as well,"

 I'm not following you. With less and less hunters each year, how do the general hunts get more pressure? and then forcing more limited entry hunts? Can you explain it better for us morons, I just dont get what your saying...............rf

[Dman]

 I feel like I'm trying to understand your point, is there one you are trying to make, other than to ask the same question repeatedly like there's a Nixon type conspiracy going on with the deer herd management in this State??? 

 On the Methow herd, sorry but if Fitkin stated that, that is a load of crap. I was there just last year when the biologist for the Methow area, none other than Mr. Fitkin, stated that in most areas of the Methow the winter kill resulted in up to a 60% herd loss. Now you want me to believe there was a 70% increase in ONE YEAR. Garbage. That would be a record for fawn production and survival.

[huntnphool]

I spoke with Scott and Jim Tabor, both area biologists. Load of crap or not, that is their stance on the current heard, don't shoot the messenger.

 As far as repeating the same question, go back and read reply #22. Have you addressed that before and I just missed it? All I was asking was you to make it more clear what you're saying.

[Dman]

 Region 2 buck harvest 2004 -5,116

 Region 2 buck harvest 2005 -4340

 Region 2 buck harvest 2006 -3,570

[huntnphool]

The general season went to the 28th in 04, the harvest numbers should be higher given the extra week plus the time of year. I guess what I don't understand is how you translate these figures to "season areas get more and more pressure, forcing yet more limited entry hunts" I'm not giving you *censored* here, I'm really trying to understand what your saying.

[Dman]

  I answered already in 16 and 17. It all has to do with development. I just read Fitkin's latest comment's in the ESPN 2007 Washington deer forecast and again he talked about the primary mule deer issue as being housing development. DFW states whitetail can handle growth better than mule deer. What I'm saying is that we are seing reduced season's and other restrictions as were imposed in 2006 in a lot of mule deer areas because of development, compounded by the weather and hair slip. It is a false security blanket to see the same amount of deer and get your buck every year in the same range, when that same range is shrinking every year and more hunter's are choosing to hang it up because of that. I had another post on the Bush plan to sell off several thousand acres in Washington this year alone of NF land. I don't know where you hunt, but if it's in the Okanogan, Wenatchee, or Colville National Forest's, they are shrinking every year. The best we can do is keep pestering WDFW and the State to buy more lands and to conserve the resource for future generations. I remember this same arguement happened when the three point rule went in to affect. How many people are big fans of that now? I know I am. I would like to see the day when say, the Mission unit is closed to general season, but lottery tags are boosted to 200 and I can actually get drawn. The lottery system does not have to vary that much from general season in units with more stable populations. Say, for example the East Okanogan unit now has 3,000 hunters per year. With the current deer herd, perhaps 2,500 lottery tags could be issued, not a big change. Some areas, you still could have a buck opportunity every year, if you got drawn, but the emphasis should be on more harvest of does. I think people fear the unknown a little, with regard to this type of system, but it works well in other States.

[huntnphool]

"I would like to see the day when say, the Mission unit is closed to general season, but lottery tags are boosted to 200"

 In effect isn't that what they have done already, shortening the season to 9 days and backing it to the middle of Oct.? I mean, this way your never going to see a migratory buck unless you do draw that permit. They don't come down into that area until the weather and rut push them down, which doesn't happen in this state until Nov, typically. I agree with you on most of your points but like Colville said, its really not fair to penalize your average hunter just because you and I want to hunt trophy animals. Do you really know poeple that stopped hunting because a piece of land was sold? Sounds to me like they were in it for the wrong reasons. Why not just go to a different area, or better yet, buy the land themselves.

[Colville]

What's the doe/fawn pop in all that time?  Also declining or holding even? Do you care to attribute cause/effect to the numbers? Season length? Weather/migration?  I don't know any more that what you just posted, only how good we were at killing bucks in region 2 over those years. How's the underlying herd condition? Buck numbers rebound from high takes if the doe pop and fawn recruitment are there.

If East Okanagon has no problem... Why are you wanting to push a solution??? See the title of this thread.

If Mission can have a general season, but you want to draw one of 200 apps is that because mission can't support a general season or because you want to hunt 4 pts in November there?  Why is that preferable to higher hunter numbers and lower takes in an early October season? Why should 4000 hunters lose their hunting grounds for 200 to kill a big buck in the rut? You keep forwarding answers to questions/problems that aren't established. What is mission's herd like and in what ways can the problem there be addressed and why would a shut down and issue of 200 LE permits be the best solution except that you want to hunt big deer there in the migration?

Weather and hair slip problems can correct and the herd recovers. The restrictions can be lifted. It sounds like you want a pre-emptive solution for all mule deer hunting even if the herds in those GMU's don't have the problem. I assume they don't, because as you've pointed out F&G didn't impose the restrictions everywhere. I understand habitat loss and it can/does affect what kind of herd numbers will be supportable but you aren't making any specific case about any particular unit based on an identified population problem nor have you explained why your solution is the best while offering it up as a solution to areas without problems.

I'm not a state bio. I'm not claiming to have the answers but I'll not accept a draw only state of affairs without first being convinced it is truly needed and other solutions aren't as good.