Spikes taken with Quality permit

[Karl Blanchard]

I don't think I've seen a guy get bashed so much for such a little remark, I've said much worse things and not gotten beaten up so bad.   

challenge accepted 

[trophyhunt]

I don't think I've seen a guy get bashed so much for such a little remark, I've said much worse things and not gotten beaten up so bad.   

challenge accepted 

Dang it, I should have looked to see if you were on line!!!!

[BULLBLASTER]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

[Pegasus]

I don't think I've seen a guy get bashed so much for such a little remark, I've said much worse things and not gotten beaten up so bad.   

It produced a great story with pics about jrebel's hunt with his son. I have always assumed when you see a spike shot with a great permit that it was a last day choice to bring some meat home. Nothing wrong with that.

[elkboy]

As long as a harvest is legal and safely done, and the meat is respectfully cared for and consumed, I will never judge another hunter's decision to harvest (or not).  If a spike is harvested, that just means that a mature buck will be that much bigger next year, and could be the answer to the dreams of a hunter who really is focused on a nice wallhanger.  Just my  , I suppose.  Not trying to argue with Bobcat; I've always respected what he has to say.  And the data issue does merit some looking into.

JReb, that sure does seem like the definition of a quality hunt!  Thanks for sharing.  And as for the deer... I've never seen a deer that I didn't think was quality.  They are incredible animals.   

[Pegasus]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

That is our point. Get the non-reporters to report to produce a valid success ratio. The question is why they are not doing it? In your example you are throwing out some of the data that would make the report on success ratio valid. Instead it is a bunch of junk science without all permits drawn reporting. It is an easy fix so why is it not being done? To skew the success ratio upwards?

[BULLBLASTER]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

That is our point. Get the non-reporters to report to produce a valid success ratio. The question is why they are not doing it? In your example you are throwing out some of the data that would make the report on success ratio valid. Instead it is a bunch of junk science without all permits drawn reporting. It is an easy fix so why is it not being done? To skew the success ratio upwards?

They are already trying to get people to report. It costs a $10 fee before you can purchase your next license if you dont report. How is it “junk science” to publish the success rate with the info you have? About the only change i could see that likely wouldnt happen would be to not let a person buy a license if they miss a report.

[idahohuntr]

Nice try bobcat I was giving you the benefit of doubt but one thing has nothing to do with the other you're right you did mean it and it was a dbag atatement

I get that the statement could have been interpreted in a derogatory sense, but I think it was a fair, respectful question regarding the harvest data.  I didn't detect even the slightest hint that he believes hunters shouldn't kill spikes on quality permits, and I'm sure he would never make negative comments to or about those who did decide to fill their tag with a spike.  He did not denigrate anyone who killed a spike, just pointed out an unexpected result for high demand permits known for better than average bucks...and Jrebel share a great story that probably gives a pretty good explanation (not that one is required) for why even in some of the better units the harvest is inclusive of spikes.  I think its unfair to attack bobcat over a question like that, nearly as unfair as someone making negative remarks about a success post that is a spike or other lower age class animal

[Pegasus]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

That is our point. Get the non-reporters to report to produce a valid success ratio. The question is why they are not doing it? In your example you are throwing out some of the data that would make the report on success ratio valid. Instead it is a bunch of junk science without all permits drawn reporting. It is an easy fix so why is it not being done? To skew the success ratio upwards?

They are already trying to get people to report. It costs a $10 fee before you can purchase your next license if you dont report. How is it “junk science” to publish the success rate with the info you have? About the only change i could see that likely wouldnt happen would be to not let a person buy a license if they miss a report.

Common sense says without all of the data the report is junk. The question is why not fix it? Its been like this for years. Force the report back one way or another.

[jrebel]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

That is our point. Get the non-reporters to report to produce a valid success ratio. The question is why they are not doing it? In your example you are throwing out some of the data that would make the report on success ratio valid. Instead it is a bunch of junk science without all permits drawn reporting. It is an easy fix so why is it not being done? To skew the success ratio upwards?

They are already trying to get people to report. It costs a $10 fee before you can purchase your next license if you dont report. How is it “junk science” to publish the success rate with the info you have? About the only change i could see that likely wouldnt happen would be to not let a person buy a license if they miss a report.

Common sense says without all of the data the report is junk. The question is why not fix it? Its been like this for years. Force the report back one way or another.

You would have to assume if people are not willing to report in the first place....forcing them will also give you skewed stats as the reports will not be honest.  To truly get good stats on these hunts, WDFW would have to have a game check of sorts to confirm what was killed and what wasn't. 

[BULLBLASTER]

The harvest rate question is easy.
They had 8 reports back one of which did not hunt. So out of 7 reported hunters, 7 bucks were killed... 100% success
They cant add the nonreported as they are just that. No way to know if they hunted or not, or if they killed or not.

That is our point. Get the non-reporters to report to produce a valid success ratio. The question is why they are not doing it? In your example you are throwing out some of the data that would make the report on success ratio valid. Instead it is a bunch of junk science without all permits drawn reporting. It is an easy fix so why is it not being done? To skew the success ratio upwards?

They are already trying to get people to report. It costs a $10 fee before you can purchase your next license if you dont report. How is it “junk science” to publish the success rate with the info you have? About the only change i could see that likely wouldnt happen would be to not let a person buy a license if they miss a report.

Common sense says without all of the data the report is junk. The question is why not fix it? Its been like this for years. Force the report back one way or another.

How do you suggest “fixing” it?
 

[B4noon]

Although I am not one for more hoops to Jump through I know a lot of other states mainly back East require successful hunters to register their game upon harvest, most license vendors as well as other businesses in towns participate and keep a log that they record data from successful hunters and it’s mandatory enforcement picks up the logs and can use to track poaching cases as well as biologists use the data for herd health monitoring without having to leave their office which our bios seem to be good at like I said could be a bit of a pain I’m not really high on creating more paperwork and trails to deal with however it could be worth the effort if the information gathered was used to better manage herd health no need for check stations that are easily dodged and hard to get accurate data no need for hunters to report at the end of season with false information

[greenhead_killer]

call like montana does. they can do it, not sure why our game dept cant.

as to bobcats other part of his post, i can agree. this is my own opinion/perspective/experience. i urge anyone reading forward to do so with an open mind and different perspective from someone else. im not knocking/judging/ i dont care what you do, your choice. i am not a trophy hunter by nature, but do enjoy chasing mature animals.
 that being said, i would not shoot a spike on a quality tag. thats my personal choice. i keep seeing the common theme of 'filling the freezer'. honestly, if thats the whole goal, sell all your gear, dont buy tags and instead buy a half a beef every year. im not judging nor do i care what people choose to do with their tags. ive shot spikes/first legal animal the first half day of a season and i have additionally eaten quality tags because i didnt find my goal animal, still having had successful hunts. im not sure why anyone would get upset about how anyone else could view a certain subject differently and have their own opinion about it. its their perspective. if someones afraid about posting pics of any said animal due to ridicule, i think the forum has fixed that already, but that sounds like an internal issue to me.
 i have a pic of a spike i shot in 2015 20 mins into the season. i set that bad boy up and took some great trophy pics and had a huge grin about it. my buddies give me a hard time, but i dont care, that was my choice to pull the trigger and i will stand by that choice.
if the idea is to fill the tag, shoot what you want and be proud of it.  nothing wrong with that.  also nothing wrong with someone not filling it. its all personal preference.

[huntnfmly]

Nice try bobcat I was giving you the benefit of doubt but one thing has nothing to do with the other you're right you did mean it and it was a dbag atatement

I get that the statement could have been interpreted in a derogatory sense, but I think it was a fair, respectful question regarding the harvest data.  I didn't detect even the slightest hint that he believes hunters shouldn't kill spikes on quality permits, and I'm sure he would never make negative comments to or about those who did decide to fill their tag with a spike.  He did not denigrate anyone who killed a spike, just pointed out an unexpected result for high demand permits known for better than average bucks...and Jrebel share a great story that probably gives a pretty good explanation (not that one is required) for why even in some of the better units the harvest is inclusive of spikes.  I think its unfair to attack bobcat over a question like that, nearly as unfair as someone making negative remarks about a success post that is a spike or other lower age class animal

I re read his post and I understand his question in his second paragraph but I stick with what I said with his first paragraph  "Who does that...."was not needed and he meant to put it like that people leave this site or don't post pics or stories because of attitudes like that

[idaho guy]

Nice try bobcat I was giving you the benefit of doubt but one thing has nothing to do with the other you're right you did mean it and it was a dbag atatement

I get that the statement could have been interpreted in a derogatory sense, but I think it was a fair, respectful question regarding the harvest data.  I didn't detect even the slightest hint that he believes hunters shouldn't kill spikes on quality permits, and I'm sure he would never make negative comments to or about those who did decide to fill their tag with a spike.  He did not denigrate anyone who killed a spike, just pointed out an unexpected result for high demand permits known for better than average bucks...and Jrebel share a great story that probably gives a pretty good explanation (not that one is required) for why even in some of the better units the harvest is inclusive of spikes.  I think its unfair to attack bobcat over a question like that, nearly as unfair as someone making negative remarks about a success post that is a spike or other lower age class animal

 

  It was an interesting question and I would have the same one. I also don't care what anybody chooses to fill their tag with and wouldn't look down on anyone for legally taking whatever. Its been an interesting thread and I enjoyed jrebels perspective and story. I am pretty sure on a quality draw hunt I wouldn't normally shoot a spike, but in jrebels situation with my boy by my side that spike would have been on the ground! Its a good question not a db question. There is nothing derogatory about asking why did or would you shoot a spike on a quality deer hunt? When I saw it I had the same question. We got some great answers like first deer, wanting to fill freezer no matter what and just finishing a great hunt with your kid. Good question