What Elk Management Change Proposals do you Support

[greenhead_killer]

I like the way Idaho does it. No points and you have to choose between putting in for deer/elk or OIL tags.

but but but, I have been applying for years and I DESERVE to draw a tag...

lol, actually after 24 years, I kinda feel I do deserve a tag in my home state. Just saying, 

you got a moose tag, that was the consolation prize

[ballpark]

Adopt the IDAHO process.    Get rid of East/West selection.

[villajac29]

id rather hunt every year than worry about joe blow podcast needing to kill a big bull once so he can blow up his Instagram.

I'm sorry you get that vibe from me man, not my intention ever! Could care less if people see what I kill, and like I said I'm gonna move away from here before I draw a tag in the mean time I'll be hunting the westside. Good luck chasing spikes, you're gonna need it!

[NOCK NOCK]

2 threads and not 1 mention of, IMO, the biggest issue.

PRESSURE!   Herd health and quality are very much effected by pressure....humans, predators, weather.

Only 1 of these do we really have a reasonable chance of changing.

We cant snap our fingers and expect it all to be better tomorrow, it needs to be approached one small step at a time.


NO MORE Multi season permits is the easiest and best way to take the first step. Multis put wayyyyyy to much pressure on the animals

To counteract the loss of revenue for WDFW, a very small increase in tag cost across the board would cover it. or an even smaller step(but not preferred IMO) would be to offer a few multis......with a much higher cost for those who really want the chance to hit all 3 weapons/seasons.

[villajac29]

Well now see that's not being very honest Jacob. 13% draw odds for 3 archery tags is what you have in NV for 0 points. Try filtering with a gun, which you state several times in both these threads as the primary user group. Set your filter at 50% draw odds and include all firearms and you get to 5 points before you have a 50/50 chance at a tag and that's only 10 out of 47 units. Take muzzy out of it and it drops to 3 units.  Not everyone is an archery guy so I'd call only getting to hunt elk every half decade or so kind of long odds.

My point if top end quality was directed at the idea that keeps getting thrown around of otc 3pt or better which would destroy our hard earned elk populations and age structure. Also if you are trying to argue that wdfw wouldn't over prescribe permits I need only to point back to the previous 3 year season cycle where they did exactly that which spear headed the temporary decline in overall populations.

The point I was making is yes you can draw a tag the first year you apply. I drew a non res mule deer tag with one point at 4% chance of drawing this year. I understand that's very lucky but if I can do that at 1 point residents could do it nearly every year.

Since you asked for the rifle odds here they are. I wish I had Washington prior to 2015 on here because I think people would be suprised. I highlighted odds at 5 points. I'll include washington just cause I want people to know how hard it is. And the fact is they haven't cut early rifle tags really much at all because most years its no more than three unless you are putting in for little naches or certain bigger units. My point is if you have odds growing above 10% and put in every year you will likely draw a tag before you're odds hit 50%. Not guaranteed but very likely. I've done enough data analytics to understand that. Also people have to understand that the success on these tags AVERAGES 45% so the rifle tags with low percentages are hunts where you are likely gonna shoot a 360" or bigger bull without much difficulty. Even the easier to draw units have trophy potential that rivals or surpasses the Blue Mountains. My point is people are drawing in Nevada, its actually like playing the real lottery in washington with real quality hunts usually below 2% odds even with tons of points.

People deserve to be rewarded by the system they fund, and they are not. Spike hunts with low odds is like working at a restaurant and getting paid in other peoples leftovers. But again just my opinion. I'll look up those other stats that you were asking for.




(the info you posted is subscriber only info, you shouldn't post that publicly here)

[villajac29]

That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.

I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.

Interesting idea, I think that could be effective in clearing out the draws. However, I think focusing applicants in other ways can give hunters more options while accomplishing the task of clearing out the application pools

[villajac29]

That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.

I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.

These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.


The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.

Indeed at some point we have to care more about elk than elk hunting.

I agree, I've been trying to look at it mainly with a biological viewpoint but at the same time increasing opportunity. Removing OTC spike hunts will allow for more accurate harvest based off allocation. If that is the case biologist can more tightly control population swings and statistics that give out hunter opportunity. They do need to improve their survey techniques to more accurately represent bull to cow ratios and other metrics!

[villajac29]

That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.

I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.

Point taken, Karl.  I suppose I am being pretty hard on him.  But he's just another guy that comes along with a scheme to improve the odds for him to enjoy his way of hunting at the expense of everybody else's.  My main issue is probably more with his barreling on here with biased polls and ideas about what everybody's interpretation of "quality" is than the meat of his argument.

And I've long been a vocal opponent to the "big split" of points and increased categories that happened a while back.  I saw the writing on the wall, and quit the points game then and there. OTC for me from there on out.

Again Skillet, not in this for my own gain at all. ONE MORE TIME I AM PROBABLY MOVING AWAY IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO!!! Just got frustrated with how opportunity was being created. I don't expect everyone to agree with me about what opportunity is, that's why I started this discussion to see what peoples thoughts were on OTC opportunity. And I can't help the poll being biased, I am trying to gather info for myself so I can put together a more well rounded proposal to the commission and GMAC. I'm sorry you took this discussion as a selfish cause!

[Karl Blanchard]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked what percentage of NV resident elk applicants get to hunt elk every year? Anyone can crunch some numbers on gohunt and then claim you'll probably maybe possibly draw a tag within 5 years. I wanna see overall  how many get to hunt annually.  Is it 10% of applicants? 20%? The VAST majority of the rich elk hunting culture in WA (something NV doesnt have) will not accept only hunting once every 5-10 years. I've promise I've hunted NV way more times than you and I've yet to talk to a resident that is thrilled with their elk opportunities.

[villajac29]

2 threads and not 1 mention of, IMO, the biggest issue.

PRESSURE!   Herd health and quality are very much effected by pressure....humans, predators, weather.

Only 1 of these do we really have a reasonable chance of changing.

We cant snap our fingers and expect it all to be better tomorrow, it needs to be approached one small step at a time.


NO MORE Multi season permits is the easiest and best way to take the first step. Multis put wayyyyyy to much pressure on the animals

To counteract the loss of revenue for WDFW, a very small increase in tag cost across the board would cover it. or an even smaller step(but not preferred IMO) would be to offer a few multis......with a much higher cost for those who really want the chance to hit all 3 weapons/seasons.

I've mentioned pressure like 10 times!!! Pressure in the woods is outrageous with an OTC system and guess what when you draw a tag you have to compete with general season hunters in most cases. This paired with short seasons gets an outrageous amount of people chasing animals all over the place throughout the fall. One of my main reasons for offering these ideas.

[Karl Blanchard]

But the data is already out there man. People want to hunt every year. Every wdfw survey that has ever had that question says the same thing

[villajac29]

That wasn't what I asked. I asked what percentage of NV resident elk applicants get to hunt elk every year? Anyone can crunch some numbers on gohunt and then claim you'll probably maybe possibly draw a tag within 5 years. I wanna see overall  how many get to hunt annually.  Is it 10% of applicants? 20%? The VAST majority of the rich elk hunting culture in WA (something NV doesnt have) will not accept only hunting once every 5-10 years. I've promise I've hunted NV way more times than you and I've yet to talk to a resident that is thrilled with their elk opportunities.

You didn't read my message, I said I would look into it.
But before I do they have 13,000 elk. For an entire state... Its impossible to manage that few elk for a culture that gets to hunt elk every year. I'm pointing out that they do a pretty damn good job with the hand they are dealt. You're right I don't live there but I get to see it from an outsider prospective and it seems a lot better managed than here. Last time I was there I talked with plenty of hunters and most of them were like "The last time my this family member drew this tag the shot a great bull, then when my other family member drew they shot a bull over here" My point is people are drawing tags even with a tiny amount of elk... Cool people get to hunt spikes every year and shoot one every 15 years, awesome that's great while elk are getting over pressure in almost every unit

You're missing one big point of this though, moving Yakima, Colockum, and the Blues to completely draw only will not end OTC opportunities. We have another ~35,000 elk that are open to OTC hunts. That won't change. I don't look at hunting as a right, I would forgo hunting deer and elk hunting next year in Washington if they just said we are gonna stop hunting to recover a huge amount of animals and build up some populations. I'm not saying that's a viable biological option to improve animal health but I would do it if meant better opportunity down the road. People are seeing me as selfish for starting this discussion but people don't want to sacrifice what they have in the short run if it means better outcomes in the future... part of this is distrust and I get that but nothing is gonna change if we don't push for it.

[idahohuntr]

That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.

I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.

These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.


The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.

Indeed at some point we have to care more about elk than elk hunting.

I agree, I've been trying to look at it mainly with a biological viewpoint but at the same time increasing opportunity. Removing OTC spike hunts will allow for more accurate harvest based off allocation. If that is the case biologist can more tightly control population swings and statistics that give out hunter opportunity. They do need to improve their survey techniques to more accurately represent bull to cow ratios and other metrics!

I really don't think much of this discussion has much to do with biology...its all social...its another quantity v. quality debate.  Same discussion that plays out in just about every state, every unit across the west every year.  How do you balance opportunity vs. quality (typically defined by older age class animals, fewer hunters)? 

[Stein]

There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking.  States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance.  Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.

It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.

You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment.  You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment.  At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.

The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.

[Karl Blanchard]

There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking.  States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance.  Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.

It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.

You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment.  You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment.  At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.

The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.

spot on stein.

My argument from the beginning has been that yak and Colockum are not under objective and the only thing that needs done is more elk permits and a more restrictive permit system. What I take issue with is comparing two polar opposite states like NV and WA.  Or using a comment from a MT biologists shock at what we have going on here when MT and WA couldnt be farther apart and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that MT bio doesn't even know where the Colockum is let alone the dynamics of managing it. I'm not even against a draw system but what always drags me into this stuff us not calling a spade a spade.

Jacob you say you don't care if others know what you kill but you slather social media with it. You say you are moving away so don't care what happens here but then go to great lengths to change what the MAJORITY of sportsman want. If you would be a bit more honest people might be more open to your ideas. All of this sets off the ol sniffer a bit