Should Washington Move to a Draw Only Management for Yakima, Colockum, and Blues

[villajac29]

Reduce our take to produce larger bulls so the Yakama's have bigger horns to sell on the Rez.

Makes perfect sense to me..

Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.

[villajac29]

The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.

Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods.  You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too. 

But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.

I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be.  Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks.  What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.

 

I'm going to refer to draw only states. In states where it is draw only people aren't giving up there chance to go out and the woods they just do it as a family group around the few people who drew. They get to focus on helping that person and more often those individuals are successful. The success rates for spike hunting is so low that it is realistic that someone only kills a 1 spike every 20 years. If you could give people the chance to hunt branch bulls 2-4 times in that time period they would likely harvest more elk and more pounds of meat in the long run. Cleaning up the draws would also make antlerless draws easier to get so you could fill in the other times with that or bull category tag. The system could be reworked to provide "more opportunity" while not offering tags to everyone every year. I know its hard to think about in an area that has had OTC hunting for the existence of these herds in sustainable numbers. The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.

[Skillet]

The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.

A little bit patronizing, don't you think?  I'm not thinking you get to decide what a quality, or better, experience for everybody else is.  People can camp year-round.  Why let them hunt elk at all then?

No matter how you try to characterize it, you're trying to disenfranchise people who don't participate in the draws, because they could go OTC every year.  By going to draw-only, you're going to tell all those people that the system they've enjoyed for 20+ years is no longer available to them. They're basically never going to get to hunt elk again, because of the huge glut of points holders that would have a huge relative draw advantage.  Young hunter recruitment will plummet.  But, hey - you'll get a marginally better chance at a quality tag every 5-10 years.

No thank you, I cannot get on board with your idea of "quality" for a select few at the cost of a treasured fall tradition for everyone.

[ribka]

You conveniently forgot to factor in exploding wolf and cat populations which WDFW refuses to address. This of course will greatly reduce tags , hunting opportunities and the fact that WDFW has been drastically reducing tags already every year with no reliable stats on the elk herd. . Your projections are extremely naive.

but as mentioned a lot of cash to be made by the tribal hunting of bulls and antler sales.

Reduce our take to produce larger bulls so the Yakama's have bigger horns to sell on the Rez.

Makes perfect sense to me..

Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.

[Limhangerslayer]

The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.

A little bit patronizing, don't you think?  I'm not thinking you get to decide what a quality, or better, experience for everybody else is.  People can camp year-round.  Why let them hunt elk at all then?

No matter how you try to characterize it, you're trying to disenfranchise people who don't participate in the draws, because they could go OTC every year.  By going to draw-only, you're going to tell all those people that the system they've enjoyed for 20+ years is no longer available to them. They're basically never going to get to hunt elk again, because of the huge glut of points holders that would have a huge relative draw advantage.  Young hunter recruitment will plummet.  But, hey - you'll get a marginally better chance at a quality tag every 5-10 years.

No thank you, I cannot get on board with your idea of "quality" for a select few at the cost of a treasured fall tradition for everyone.

[Special T]

No where in this discussion is the $ raised by the WDFW brought up. Part of the reason draws are a mess is the added $ pulled into the department.

[Magnum_Willys]

Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.

I like it ! 

[Colville]

The math does not work out.

District 8 is the heart of E-WA elk.  Hunt stats are a bit awkward because they don't contain all the info you might want to see.  However, ALL of the 2019 special permit, Modern/Archery/Muzzle for District 8 contained 272 tags (not including the special private lands elk areas).  The success on those tags 115 Antlered bulls.  Now they've been cooking books for a long time and know that the take is a fraction of what's offered in permits.  The permits offered aren't the # available to be killed, those are the amount of hunters you can allow, knowing you'll get a smallish percentage who are successful.

In the same unit another 16,200 people hunted the general season, killing an additional 535 bulls (mostly spikes and one by 2's etc).  There may be some branch bulls considered here from other special classes, disabled etc. These bulls weren't taken on a special permit.  That puts bulls for harvest at about 650 between general and permit. 

272 people killed 115 Branch Bulls on permit.
16,200 killed 535 spikes mostly, and kill the vast majority that exist.

If everyone that's allowed to hunt is allowed to kill a branch bull, how many can hunt?  I direct you to that 272/115 ratio above.  The only reason 16200 hunters didn't kill vastly more, like the special permit folks, is because they essentially kill almost all the spikes that are in the crop each year.   I can't believe spikes are harder to hunt that branch bulls and so it looks like something like 3 or 4 to one is the ratio of hunters you can allow to pursue bulls and keep this kind of survival population.  Say that's off, and you can afford 5 hunters per killed bull (including spikes and ignoring the fact that vastly more branch bulls will be killed).

5 x 650 = 3250 hunters.   If we have 16,200 hunters, that's hunting bulls every 5 years.

If the herds were declining, this years # of permits would make it closer to 6+ years.  We are not going to be able to hunt every other year, or every 3 years if draw only is instituted.  not to mention that you will have to buy a license and permit EVERY YEAR you don't hunt to enter.  Revenue has to be kept static, otherwise the cost to hunt when you do get the chance has to increase 500%.

Bulls are Finite.  There's no way to get enough of them with our habitat to change the system and increase hunting opportunity.  Opportunity being defined as being allowed to hunt, not only being allowed to hunt bulls.  I suspect WDFW would opine that this kind of draw system would be able to let far fewer hunters than I suggest as they all target branch bulls and the negative effects on breeding that result. 

Anyhow, these suggestions are never accompanied by any kill data.  There's no way to have your bulls and kill them too.

[Special T]

The math does not work out.

District 8 is the heart of E-WA elk.  Hunt stats are a bit awkward because they don't contain all the info you might want to see.  However, ALL of the 2019 special permit, Modern/Archery/Muzzle for District 8 contained 272 tags (not including the special private lands elk areas).  The success on those tags 115 Antlered bulls.  Now they've been cooking books for a long time and know that the take is a fraction of what's offered in permits.  The permits offered aren't the # available to be killed, those are the amount of hunters you can allow, knowing you'll get a smallish percentage who are successful.

In the same unit another 16,200 people hunted the general season, killing an additional 535 bulls (mostly spikes and one by 2's etc).  There may be some branch bulls considered here from other special classes, disabled etc. These bulls weren't taken on a special permit.  That puts bulls for harvest at about 650 between general and permit. 

272 people killed 115 Branch Bulls on permit.
16,200 killed 535 spikes mostly, and kill the vast majority that exist.

If everyone that's allowed to hunt is allowed to kill a branch bull, how many can hunt?  I direct you to that 272/115 ratio above.  The only reason 16200 hunters didn't kill vastly more, like the special permit folks, is because they essentially kill almost all the spikes that are in the crop each year.   I can't believe spikes are harder to hunt that branch bulls and so it looks like something like 3 or 4 to one is the ratio of hunters you can allow to pursue bulls and keep this kind of survival population.  Say that's off, and you can afford 5 hunters per killed bull (including spikes and ignoring the fact that vastly more branch bulls will be killed).

5 x 650 = 3250 hunters.   If we have 16,200 hunters, that's hunting bulls every 5 years.

If the herds were declining, this years # of permits would make it closer to 6+ years.  We are not going to be able to hunt every other year, or every 3 years if draw only is instituted.  not to mention that you will have to buy a license and permit EVERY YEAR you don't hunt to enter.  Revenue has to be kept static, otherwise the cost to hunt when you do get the chance has to increase 500%.

Bulls are Finite.  There's no way to get enough of them with our habitat to change the system and increase hunting opportunity.  Opportunity being defined as being allowed to hunt, not only being allowed to hunt bulls.  I suspect WDFW would opine that this kind of draw system would be able to let far fewer hunters than I suggest as they all target branch bulls and the negative effects on breeding that result. 

Anyhow, these suggestions are never accompanied by any kill data.  There's no way to have your bulls and kill them too.

Good job on bringing this into the light

[3dvapor]

I prefer the Arizona model of management.  Its been the only place ive been where there was a balance of predators and prey.  Saw wolves, bear and  cougar and couldnt sleep at night because of all the bugling bulls all around camp in the distance.  The state truly knows how to manage there wildlife resource.  I can just imagine what this state could be like  if the same officials took over.  Especially with just sound management as the only agenda.  I guarantee the spike only hunts would be the first gone and the hound hunting would immediately be  put back in place.

[whacker1]

No choice for "Conflicted" haven't decided.  I see both sides of the argument.

[Buzz2401]

5400 elk killed in Washington by 54,400 non tribal licensed hunters in 2019.  Not sure how you increase harvest rates without either reducing hunter numbers(draw only or maybe alternating years) or increasing the number of elk to harvest(reduce predators, poaching and tribal hunting). If you went to any bull or 3 point or better seasons sure the harvest rates would probably go up for a year or two but then they would just fall back to where they are now.  I personally would like to see the state get rid of the multiple choice permit draws, you should have to put in for one unit and one species( maybe withe the exception of OIL's).

[NOCK NOCK]

Yep like everyone is going to say tribes will shoot them all anyways. There’s no point in anything we do management wise because they don’t follow any of our restrictions. Anything we do to try to increase our opportunity will be taken advantage of by them long before we are ever able to reap the rewards. And as all will say this is the one group in the entire world that has inalienable rights no matter what. So I guess I would say I agree let’s just open it up to the same exact “season”as the tribes. Give it a year or two we will have almost no elk and they will be knocking on WDFW’s door to try to work with them.

Very good insight!!!!  you nailed it!

Agree 

[NOCK NOCK]

The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.

Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods.  You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too. 

But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.

I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be.  Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks.  What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.

 

TRUTH

[dvolmer]

This will never be fixed

Bingo!!! You nailed it!  Sad but absolutely true!!  It will go up and down like the stock market.  Some years a little better than others but over the long haul it will go downward if nothing is done.  Being that WDFW has no control over native hunting and predators, and that their desire for funds is more than their desire for management, it will as you said, "This will never be fixed"!

In other states like Montana and Wyoming, natives that hunt off of the reservations have to follow the same rules as the rest of the people.  In those states they are letting people hunt and trap wolves along with using dogs to hunt cougars and bears to keep the predators under control.  Don't blame WDFW for this, it is the liberal agenda, tree-hugger's, and Liberal judges that will never let this happen in our state.  If they weren't making a mint off of our revenue for the general fund and their social programs, hunting would probably already be outlawed in our state.  King County makes all the rules in this state and it is full of fruits and nuts.