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

[Miles]

They could completely shut down elk hunting for 5-10 years.  Then open with a draw  only hunt.

Perhaps they could start with regions or units?

[Karl Blanchard]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

[rtspring]

Some don’t know where to LOOK!

[Miles]

So did the wolves kill them all or not?

[villajac29]

I too have heard biologists in podscasts say the reason for spike only hunts is to increase the total number of bulls available to be taken without affecting the over all population as much as bull only hunts due to spikes being Less likely to survive then a mature animal.

I never participated in a the rifle spike only hunts just archery and muzzy my whole life, but the people I know who actual hunt have a success rate closer to 50% so I don’t really buy the below 6% percent success rate argument. We all know most guys don’t get off their couch in hunting season and maybe a majority of guys don’t report their harvest. Draw only to hunt every 4-5 years probably sounds great to guys who all ready hunt out of state every year any way.  But for those of us who like killing a elk most years in are back yards it’s pretty hard to support.

My backyard is now a west side unit though so I guess I’ll just stand by on the sidelines and see what happens. I know my Yakima friends are really frustrated loosing there late season cow hunts, specially when you see how the state is being mismanaged. But hey at least there’s bears everywhere to hunt I guess..

You really should understand math before you start spreading misinformation to other people within your community. Just because you know people who are more successful year to year doesn't mean the stats aren't off, for example...

Last year in the Little Naches Unit 1288 hunters reported hunting modern general season and killed 45 bulls. That equals 3% success rate. If you increase the success rate to 6% due to non-reporting (which was your starting point of which you said it was higher than) then that means 77 bulls were actually harvested. If this were true, harvest data and end of year metrics would be wildly off and the elk would be in much worse shape. The number of calf recruitment doesn't support that number of spikes being on the landscape. We already harvest 65% of spikes in any given year so if you doubled harvest due to non-reporting that would mean there would be no more mature bulls escaping. It's not likely success rates are off by even a whole percent let alone .2 percent with the number of hunters you are dealing with. Just not the way statistics work man, sorry to tell ya.

Also if you are out there not reporting your harvest you are just making it harder for the biologists to do there job. The more accurate data they can get the better decision making can happen and be supported down the road. Be responsible and do your part as a hunter

[villajac29]

I want to increase herd size rather than squabble over the remains, growing the herd/s should be first and foremost on everyone's thoughts.   

The spike only thing is dumb, but it gets people buying tags.   

If it went draw only there'd be fewer elk tag sales and I think it would put additional pressure on OTC deer tags. 
I think a small % of hunters get into the draw game, most go to walmart and just buy tags, and if they can't buy an OTC elk tag like they've done for 20+ years they'll say piss on it and get angry. 

The spike bulls would be allowed to grow into more mature bulls,  so the draw would get much better a few years down the road for those that participate.   
but also there'd be more people applying for draws I believe too, especially when the number of nice bulls increases because they aren't getting slaughtered as spikes with OTC tags. 

I think it would reduce revenue overall for WDFW,  which in turn would reduce management of the elk herds. 


I see a lot of loosing, and a small segment of hunters would gain and have a better hunt I have no doubt of that.   


I'm still mixed, but leaning towards ending OTC spike hunts in favor of draw only branched bull.

I believe I've said this before but if Washington made hunters purchase a license before tags and not lump them all together then it would solve a lot of the "revenue" loss from people not applying. It's a pretty strange system for WA to force hunters to buy a tag before an application. Doesn't make any sense, and kind of reinforces that OTC opportunities are actually good here, which in most cases they aren't. There are ways to fix the minor issues with our systems we just have to be creative. Also focusing applicants with zone elk management, waiting periods after drawing, and picking a once in a lifetime species or deer/elk would fix a lot of the issues of even more applicants which if you weren't aware was already happening. Check out the attached image. Even though this is the turnbull hunt I chose it because it has the column titles so people understand the numbers. If you go find this under "Special Hunt Permits and Raffles" page of the WDFW website you'll see that every year in most of the hunts the number of applicants with 1 point is increasing. This will only get worse as tag allocations are down and people aren't getting removed from the pools by drawing tags. Also since there is no waiting period then hunters will be right back in the system the next year after they draw. It's clearly inefficient as draw odds are terrible and the pools keep filling up.

[greenhead_killer]

I initially said go to draw only if it’s about the herd health. After reading through and doing some more in depth thinking about this, I think keeping business as usual is the smart move. I’m not going to advocate taking someone’s opportunity away so someone else can have, what they consider a quality experience, not gonna happen. I don’t chase elk here unless I draw a permit. Too busy elsewhere during that timeframe, but when we did chase elk, we would see no one until we got back to our trucks. I think the bigger issue people have is they want to hunt elk where they think elk should be instead of hunting elk where the elk want to be. All kinda of factors go into elk moving around. People are just lazy and unwilling to change areas due to comfort and familiarity. Game patterns change, people need to learn to adapt as well. Most of my experience has been in the archery seasons here, but we always found elk and had a great time. We had a ‘quality’ experience regardless of tag outcome. We more often than not found legal animals, just didn’t work out. That’s hunting. To try and push away opportunity, I can never get behind that. If it was about herd health, I’ll listen and probably support. The idea that ones ‘quality’ experience getting to trump everyone’s opportunity is selfish and really it’s kind of disgusting.

[villajac29]

It seems true that most people who aren’t successful usually aren’t the guys putting in for tags anyway but if it went to draw only most of those guys would be in the draw so odds would get worse. At least short term.

Yes, there'd be some that got into the points game,  but honestly I think most hunters just go to walmart and buy their tags on opening day or maybe a week prior.   This would be a shock to them because they do not participate in the planning, they don't email WDFW.   I think they'd get pissed and just buy a deer tag or not even buy a tag. 

Some would jump into the points game,  but meh    most would just be disgruntled, curse WDFW and go home.

You really should try to speak from a position that is supported by data and not hear say. You seem disgruntled by everything but offer up few ideas that could realistically be implemented. I'm not saying your opinions don't matter but there seems to be little substance besides "this is what I think". Try to make things more constructive rather than inflammatory.

[villajac29]

I would also be all for opening up the units the Indians hunt for any elk in all seasons until they are gone. Hopefully it would open their eyes and get the Indians on board with some sort of a management plan and them rebuild the herds back up. It would suck short term but would be worth it long term.

It saddens me how many hunters are saying this... this is not management and conservation, it is throwing a temper tantrum. I spoke with a biologist today who has worked for the Yakamas and understands their harvest and the data surrounding it. According to him it is unlikely that out of 10,000 registered Yakamas (including babies, children and the elderly) that the hunting population which is even smaller harvests enough elk for it to become problematic.

We have to start looking big picture. If tribal members were over-harvesting to the point many of you saying they are the numbers wouldn't be stagnant they would be decreasing significantly each year. It just doesn't add up. Maybe just maybe if non-tribal hunters were less antagonistic towards something we can't change and started a conversation with tribal members and tried to connect with them to start to build a relationship maybe they would see the importance of reporting their harvest. It will be impossible to change anything if you are always so fervently opposed to tribes harvesting elk. It happened before the decline whether you were seeing it or not... it is sustainable. I just hope some people on here stop acting like children and being mindful enough to be patient and think through what really can be done to help things. And if its us that's sacrificing something that goes to show we really care about the wildlife not just "what I want".

Sorry for the soapbox but its hard listening to another person say we should just kill all the elk and start back where we were 100 years ago, makes me sick...

[villajac29]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.

Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.

I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives. 

[Karl Blanchard]

Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.

As for the quality experience,  you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer.  I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year.  Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.

[Karl Blanchard]

So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.

KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support.  Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.

I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.

Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.

I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.

counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job.  I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.

[villajac29]

I initially said go to draw only if it’s about the herd health. After reading through and doing some more in depth thinking about this, I think keeping business as usual is the smart move. I’m not going to advocate taking someone’s opportunity away so someone else can have, what they consider a quality experience, not gonna happen. I don’t chase elk here unless I draw a permit. Too busy elsewhere during that timeframe, but when we did chase elk, we would see no one until we got back to our trucks. I think the bigger issue people have is they want to hunt elk where they think elk should be instead of hunting elk where the elk want to be. All kinda of factors go into elk moving around. People are just lazy and unwilling to change areas due to comfort and familiarity. Game patterns change, people need to learn to adapt as well. Most of my experience has been in the archery seasons here, but we always found elk and had a great time. We had a ‘quality’ experience regardless of tag outcome. We more often than not found legal animals, just didn’t work out. That’s hunting. To try and push away opportunity, I can never get behind that. If it was about herd health, I’ll listen and probably support. The idea that ones ‘quality’ experience getting to trump everyone’s opportunity is selfish and really it’s kind of disgusting.

The actual herd health will likely not change much from the current system to a draw only system. What it would do would give managers the ability to more effectively effect antlerless and antlered harvest to where they can change outcomes to benefit both opportunity and a stratified age class. I understand your point as when I have hunted this area I had no trouble finding elk during archery season. Go out during a rifle season and see if that is the same. We have to look at this and how it effects everyone. It could actually provide more opportunity because as it sits right now at a 2-3% success rate average that means if everyone got to kill a spike(which isn't how hunting works so actually some people are harvest a bunch and some are harvesting none). But lets just imagine everyone got to kill a spike and the success rate was spread evenly. That means everyone gets one spike every 20 years... sounds pretty great right! But what if we changed over the system where as a rifle hunters(the hardest weapon to draw a tag for) could draw 1 quality early rifle tag in that period, potentially 2 late rifle tags and multiple cow tags(if elk were above objective like before 2015). That seems a lot better than objectively no chance to draw and getting 1 spike every 20 years. Yes that mean's you don't get a tag every year but you actually are getting better opportunity. It's my opinion and I understand that just trying to get people to think alternatively rather than at face value.

Truthfully if the majority want to support the system as is or a general OTC 3 point minimum or something like that I have nothing to say. I would support it if the majority did. Until I can see a well done inclusive survey to say that I'm gonna keep offering alternatives, because I believe there are better ways to do things.

[villajac29]

Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.

As for the quality experience,  you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer.  I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year.  Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.

They aren't dying off they just are suppressed. The truth is you can't just count your way back to 2014 numbers. It's not the same as it was and changing the number for the sake of it isn't gonna fix bad recruitment. They aren't that bad at counting I promise you...

I promise you I'm not pushing my idea of quality on others, read my post before this. If most hunters want the system as is I will support that, but I need to see accurate data to see what the majority really want. I don't think this poll does that but I think it is attainable. You could cap non-resident hunters like every other state does and benefits from. I think most people would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point that is why I think it is ridiculous that bulls are escaping to 10,11, and 12 years old under the current system. We don't need every bull to be 330"+. It would be nice to manage for a couple here and there for people who like that stuff but there is a middle ground. There's still strong hunting heritage in draw only state. That doesn't go away unless we let it...

[predatorpro]

The draw system is strictly to make money, it has no other purpose and in no way has anything to do with wildlife management.

I agree it has a revenue focus in many ways - and that has influenced decisions by WDFW - but to say it has nothing to do with wildlife management is not accurate.  If all tags were OTC the quality and quantity of game would be decimated from current levels.

Basically our elk hunting would be like our deer hunting

That would be amazing! Deer hunting is great in this state.