Solutions seeking problems.

[Dman]

 Points taken, like I said, it wouldn't happen overnight, but even according to WDFW we are headed that direction, as far as being primarily a lottery based hunting State, that is the only reason I polled on this one, because this topic has made a lot of headlines this year. Your example of 4,000 hunter's losing out is probably not the way it would work out. Speaking strictly about one GMU like Mission, you would likely have 500 doe permits, 300 youth and disabled permits and another 200 buck permits, more like 1,000 , or more total spread out over all types of weapons, that's just hypothetical. I did work for a County Bio. as a habitat technician for several years and am still involved with habitat work today, it's something I've studied a little. You are exactly right about "pre-emptive" management, why wait until a unit has an issue to manage it for the best quality beforehand? I'm curious, what type of deer do you annually harvest in the NE corner? From what I've seen, the average deer there is a smallish whitetail buck, in 15 years of hunting there. I did not even see a mature muley alive up there until after the three point rule, always just dinker spikes, forky's before the rule change. Statewide harvest success runs about 22%-24% on deer. That means, of the 4,000 people you stated are hunting Mission, over 3,000 of them now go home with a fistfull of you know what every year. I can hike around in the woods any day of the week without buying a licence, or tag and not harvest a deer, pointless. If 1,000 lottery tag holder's go into the woods in one unit, harvest 850 deer, when previously 4,000 people would harvest the same amount of deer in the same unit AND you could reflect that type of success rate in every unit of this State, Washington would rank up there with Idaho, Montana, etc.. I really believe it is possible.

[Colville]

Success rate is not the point. Hunters want to hunt. Having the chance at a kill vs sitting at home until yr 3 to have a much better chance that yr is not a trade off most people want to make. In your hypothetical, a guy that wants to take his kid hunting in Mission may not be able to do ti but every 4th year.

You said it yourself, "why wait until a unit has an issue to manage it for the best quality beforehand?"... Because I'm not trying to at all. I'm trying to manage for quantity. And if done correctly, the quality actually remains like it does today for a limited few to hunt when they are truly huntable in Nov.

In your scenario I see a massive loss of participation in hunting.  This is bad bad news for hunting in general. It also will begin the push toward greater and greater commoditization of hunting because the department needs the participation for the revenue, cut participation and what do you have to do to make up the loss, pretty simple. I see horrors of SFW and becoming Utah where money rules who hunts where, when.

I'd much rather have an early general season and have to work harder than most are willing to get a decent opportunity but in fact have that choice and chance every year than see 2/3rds of WA mule deer hunters lose their hunting so that the kill rate goes way up when they do.

BTW.. Colville is a moniker, not my home. I'm on the west side. I have a long established whitetail camp for friends and family in the NE hence the name. I backpack hunt the high hunt, though not well in ALW and GP. I have hunted deer in many parts of the state though. The fact that whitetails are in general small really means nothing to me. I love to hunt them, I love to eat them. Same for mule deer. My view of what's best for the future of hunting is giving the very most possible opportunity to the most hunters. Also, before the first go round, ages ago, of cutting the forests in the NE area Mule deer were much more prevalent. I don't see many mule deer, but where I hunt over there, I generally only see big ones. But they are damn hard to hunt not made any easier by having to do it in Oct. Again, I'd gladly trade the chance and right to pursue them as hard as it is, every year over much higher success rates and hunting every 3rd. It's not even close for me.

"I can hike around in the woods any day of the week without buying a license, or tag and not harvest a deer, pointless." Not pointless at all. I don't know if there's a stat, but I'd bet good money that 30% of hunters are killing 60% of the deer. Meaning, the best hunters are sealing the deal most years, year in year out. They can get it done inside the regs as they are now. They aren't walking in the woods not killing deer or just feeling like it's an absolute dice toss. You think Bone has any doubt about whether he can take a 3pt any yr? The point is, for many committed hunters it's already not a dice toss because they've done their hard work and that opportunity exists for everyone. Along with the opportunity not to be hard core and be glad to just luck into a buck now and again. Today a guy can bust his nut and be a better hunter and get his odds way up or chose not to. In draw only success goes way up but the price is very very steep to the rest.

[boneaddict]

First of all, not upset here.  Still trying to dicipher where everyone is at.
Bone's thoughts.....

.....the population is much lower than stated.
...... a November general season hunt would be devastating to the herd.
........I don't like draw only and think the mix of general season now and late draw tags are a good mix so folks   can  all have a chance to hunt and some can have  great hunt.
...... the current draw needs to be revamped a bit to encourage better draw odds, or make it more selective to those that are trophy hunting
......resources need to be better managed (ok..the wolves/predators and Indians need to be dealt with)