What Elk Management Change Proposals do you Support

[wildskywashington29]

I've developed these proposals as a way to clean up our current elk management and draw system. It may seem as if my intentions are so that I can draw a tag but I'm likely moving away in the next year or two, so I've made peace with the fact that I won't draw a WA tag. Luckily other states make that a bit easier for their residents. In any case, I will provide a brief description of each option so that you can fully understand the proposal. If you have any questions are counter proposals I would love to hear them. Thanks for participating!

Option 1: General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state. I've done a lot of research on the topic and found that shifting the harvest of those spikes into a draw only system would increase tag allocation by 3-6 times what they were in the past 10 years. By allocating tags based off of sustainable bull numbers paired with average hunter success in the state in draw hunts ( around 28.5%) the WDFW would've be able to allocate 2835 tags last year vs 508. At the average bull harvest in the quality managed herds of 1234 the WDFW would be able to give out 4329! This would also help in preventing over harvest in years of high general season success depending on weather and hunting conditions. This alone would improve draw odds.

Option 2: Harvest for draw tags would move to 3 point min or brow tine restriction to allow spikes to escape. This would transfer the bulk of each years crop of new bulls into the older age classes. With conservative harvest of 20-25% of the bull population there would be escapement of bulls into mature age classes maintaining the chance at a mature animal if not improving it. I have discussed this with a Montana Wildlife Biologist and she supported that this would be feasible if managed under a draw only system. This would give those less interested in headgear the chance to shoot a larger bodied raghorn than a spike or hold out for a 5+ year old bull. Stratifying harvest would remove pressure on a single age class and allow escapement into maturity.

Option 3: This proposal would model Idaho and apply statewide. There are 10 recognized elk herds that reside in Washington and the amount of hunters requires further focus than just East/West. This would apply like the East/West management of today, as in you would have to purchase a tag by zone. If the zone is draw only you would have the chance to draw an antlerless tag/bull tag/ or quality tag. If none of these were drawn you would forgo elk hunting that season. For OTC units hunters would be able to apply for draw hunts in that zone or build points. If the OTC zones got over-pressured after implementation then there would likely have to be a tag cap filled at a first come first serve basis. This would focus hunters into determining what they want to do rather than for example, someone buying an eastside tag/ compete with everyone and their mother in the draw for colockum and blues tags and if they don't draw hunt OTC options in Yakima or Selkirk competing once again with everyone and their mother.

Option 4:Tag allocation based on hunter participation: I noticed in years prior the WDFW was giving out the same amount of antlerless tags to rifle hunters and muzzleloader hunters. While I'm sure the muzzy hunters were loving it the truth is they only make up about 12% of hunters in the Yakima Herd and similar numbers in other herds. What I propose would be as follows. Say the WDFW thinks they should harvest 100 Bulls in a unit, since the breakdown is about (61% Modern hunters/27% Archery/12% Muzzy) that would mean that 61 bulls go to modern hunters. This would break down into 16 for early rifle tags and 45 for late season. Divide those numbers into the average success of those hunts and you get something like 23 tags for early rifle @70% success and 129 tags @ 35% success. For archery it would be 27 bulls to harvest @13% success which equals 208 tags. Muzzleloaders would get 12 Bulls @ 25% success which would translate to 48 tags. The WDFW could do this for individual herd and individual unit success rates to make opportunity as accurate and fair as possible:

Option 5: When talking to a Montana Wildlife Bio she was blown away by how short our seasons were. She told me she had seen data that supported that harvest success wasn't hugely effected by longer seasons and that it decreases pressure on animals and competition among hunters. If the WDFW split seasons and increased the amount of time given to hunters it would make our experiences much better while not piling every hunter into one or two weekends and pressuring just about every animal in the unit.

Option 6: Nevada currently manages a mere 13000 elk compared to our 17,500 rocky mountain elk along even in a below objective year. They release 2500 bull tags last year and have an average hunter success of 45% with a statewide bull to cow ratio of 46:100. These numbers are attained through a draw only system where their residents have much higher chance of drawing. They do however have a 7 year waiting period regardless of harvest because the experiences of their hunts are so good. I propose something shorter about 3 or 4 years whatever works better for Quality and Bull categories. This would get a huge amount of hunters out of the application pools who already got to experience a hunt giving those who just started hunting a better chance to draw a tag. This would have huge effects on odds down the road.

Option 7: This one is simple having 2 options in quality categories and 4 in bull and antlerless clogs up the application pools especially in areas that don't release a lot of tags. Cutting these by half would focus hunters on what hunt they truly want to experience giving themselves and others a better shot at drawing.

Option 8: This proposal mirrors Idaho in that it would make our Once in a Lifetime tags drawable again. The caviot is you have to pick on whether you apply for Deer/Elk or Moose or Goat or Sheep. For example say you really want to draw a moose tag, then you would have to not put your name in the hat for any other species. Since most people would want to draw a deer or elk tag that makes the odds for OIL tags grow exponentially because they are currently incredibly low. This would also prevent competition for those putting in for deer and elk making there odds grow even more. I don't see a downside to this one because being able to apply for all of them and having terrible odds across the board doesn't beat better odds for every species and having to pick.

Hope this helps! Let me know what you think and maybe things to add or take away. Thanks!

[huntnphool]

 How about eliminate the point system all together.

[grousetracker]

can't take away my points I have 30 this year in all quality categories. just fire all wdfw employees, start new!

[HUNTINCOUPLE]

Like i stated in another post turn WA into New Mexico.  Be done with it all and build quality and quantity!

[huntnphool]

can't take away my points I have 30 this year in all quality categories. just fire all wdfw employees, start new!

 https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669

[Skillet]

You state as a fact that "General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state." That's an opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags.  The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.

Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others.  You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.

Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you).  And more...

It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA.  It's like a state income tax.

Only my opinion, of course.

[Special T]

You state as a fact that "General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state." That's an opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags.  The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.

Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others.  You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.

Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you).  And more...

It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA.  It's like a state income tax.

Only my opinion, of course.

It might be you opinion but it is well reasoned.

Jacob, are you currently aware of the allocation model used to allot tags and set seasons?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[wildskywashington29]

How about eliminate the point system all together.

I would be in support of that, there would just have to be a way to help out those guys who have been putting in for 20+ years if we transitioned because even though they would get better odds because of this they wouldn't get anything in return for their support of the state through application fees. I might develop a proposal around something like that as well.

[huntnphool]

How about eliminate the point system all together.

I would be in support of that, there would just have to be a way to help out those guys who have been putting in for 20+ years if we transitioned because even though they would get better odds because of this they wouldn't get anything in return for their support of the state through application fees. I might develop a proposal around something like that as well.

 https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669

[MAVsled]

quote: "Like i stated in another post turn WA into New Mexico.  Be done with it all and build quality and quantity..."

this will never happen in WA State, with the uncontrolled tribal hunting (POACHING)

[idahohuntr]

You state as a fact that "General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state." That's an opinion, not a fact.

The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags.  The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.

Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others.  You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.

Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you).  And more...

It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA.  It's like a state income tax.

Only my opinion, of course.

It might be you opinion but it is well reasoned.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

One reason for general spike hunts can be that often spike survival is very low - I think I've read a few studies showing something like 90% mortality rates...so, as pointed out here, the premise that protecting spikes will equate to noticeable increases in older bulls in subsequent years may not be accurate and would not warrant the restrictions on general season spike harvest.

That said - I would be all for anything, including elimination or reduction of general seasons, if it did indeed increase branched bull hunt opportunities...but I'm not from WA and I hunt other states for elk and consider this states east side public land elk hunting to be an absolute joke - which I think is important context for my opinion, because I'm certainly not sacrificing anything by saying lets end general season elk hunts.

[Buzz2401]

To many people not enough elk.  Only a couple options reduce the people(draw only for all tags) or increase the number of elk(reduce predators, poaching and tribal over harvest).

[bobdog86]

I picked none of the above you want a special draw, no quality, no bull, no cow special categories, just one category,,,any elk. You get two choices. If selected you can shoot any elk. Otherwise, you’d be eligible to hunt spikes. Limit quantities as deemed necessary

[huntnphool]

I picked none of the above you want a special draw, no quality, no bull, no cow special categories, just one category,,,any elk. You get two choices. If selected you can shoot any elk. Otherwise, you’d be eligible to hunt spikes. Limit quantities as deemed necessary

 And your solution to the point problem would be?

[huntnnw]

points need to be eliminated, the demand is far greater than tags available and only getting worse