west side draw tag

[300winmag]

I was told the other day that all of the west side will go to  spike only with draw tags for branch bull. He said it will probably go into affect in the next 3 years. Kind of sucks I remember when they did the spike only hunt about 10 years ago and it sucks watching a really nice bull walk and have to shoot the next stupid spike that came up the hill.So I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

[SilkWWU]

I was told the other day that all of the west side will go to  spike only with draw tags for branch bull. He said it will probably go into affect in the next 3 years. Kind of sucks I remember when they did the spike only hunt about 10 years ago and it sucks watching a really nice bull walk and have to shoot the next stupid spike that came up the hill.So I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

Would definetely improve big bulls in the area.    Though I question your "informant"

[littlebuf]

don't see a reason why they would do this. elk success on the west side is so low already it would just make it non existant if it were draw only 

[300winmag]

My informant is a gamewarden here on the west side.And he never said why they wanted to do this . The bulls here in the willapa hills have come along way in the last ten years with the 3 pt restriction and there is some really nice ones but as for draw tag calibur I would have to question that.The kill ratio may be low here but if you know how to hunt this area there are alot of nice bulls to be taken.

[elksnout]

You've got to be kidding !! No fricken way !! 

[bobcat]

They made the west side spike only a few years back, the same year the eastside went to spike only, I believe. Then they changed it back to 3 point minimum the next year after all the complaints they got. So I see no reason why they might not try doing it again. If it's better for the elk herds, why not?

[shoot-em-dead]

It would be better for revenue. Just think of how many more people would be applying for hunts. And the auction tag would have world class bulls in more than just the blues.

[elksnout]

My memory isn't the best but I do not remember the west side going all out spike only. I do remember going to game department meetings when they talked about it. It seems all you ever here on this site is how the eastsiders complain about all the hunting pressure on too few spikes... So the west side has been branched only all these years and suddenly we have a problem ? Go figure.

[bobcat]

Yeah, well my memory is apparently worse than yours. The eastside went to spike only in '93. (I went and looked at all my old regulation pamphlets.) The westside never did. I think what I was thinking of is a few years ago when the DFW was coming up with a new three year hunting season proposal, they had eastern AND western Washington as spike only for elk. Enough hunters complained about it that it got changed back to 3 point minimum at the last minute.

[Bigshooter]

Bobcat if you have all the pamphlets look at 96 or 97 maybe 98.  It was spike only on the westside one of those years.

[bobcat]

So I'm not crazy? I thought I looked at all the pamplets back to 1993. Must have missed one. But I'll look again. I've got every pamphlet back to about 1983.

[rackattack]

I want to say it was 97, that the westside switched from any bull to spike.  It wasn't all the units though, because I remember having to let a nice 5pt walk in the Lewis River unit, and then let a spike walk that same day in the Souixon.  That was a rough day.

[rackattack]

Back to the original topic of this post, it wouldn't surprise me if they go spike only on the westside.  Could be why they had no late archery bull hunts in the Winston and Ryderwood units this year.  Maybe they are trying to get those bull population up before they make the switch.

[WDFW-SUX]

 

There is absolutely NO reason for that type of regulation on the westside..

[nwhunter]

I doubt that will happen in the next two years if ever. If they were going to switch you would think that they would have done it last year when they implemented the new changes for the next three years. Spike only for sportsmen hunters and any elk for natives is not a combo that will work well on the westside.nwhunter

[bobcat]

That would be one way to DECREASE draw odds for eastside bull permits. Many people only buy westside tags and hunt elk over here because it's not spike only like the eastside. But if it would increase elk numbers over here I'd be for it.

[SkookumHntr]

There is nothing wrong with the elk numbers from what I have seen! The last 3 years Ive never seen so many bulls, Big bulls and lots of branched bulls. low elk numbers is not even a problem!

[WDFW-SUX]

There is nothing wrong with the elk numbers from what I have seen! The last 3 years Ive never seen so many bulls, Big bulls and lots of branched bulls. low elk numbers is not even a problem!

X2

I've seen more good bulls in the last few years than I ever have before.

[Shootmoore]

There is nothing wrong with the elk numbers from what I have seen! The last 3 years Ive never seen so many bulls, Big bulls and lots of branched bulls. low elk numbers is not even a problem!

X2

I've seen more good bulls in the last few years than I ever have before.

x3  I usually always see some nice branch antlered bulls every year.  Of course the area I hunt the bio down there used to try and toss in restrictions every year saying the elk population was down.  Every year I see herds of 30-60 head.  Multiple branch antlered elk, and usually a good number of spikes and a great cow calf ratio.

Sometimes I think some of the bio's need to spend more time in the brush instead of figuring out how a population is doing on a computer.

Shootmoore

[MooseStock]

They won't do it because it would just make a "Branch Antlered" shooting gallery for the tribes...........or at least thats my opinion...........Les

[bobcat]

That's right...I always forget about the indian issue. No sense in managing our deer and elk the right way in this state as it will do no good. It would just mean more animals, and bigger animals for them, and less for us.  

[elksnout]

If the game department could prove the herds were suffering, and our bull and calf ratios are poor, then I could see it. But I do not believe this to be so, at least from my wanderings. During summer scouting trips I'll see 3-4 branched bulls to a herd. And this is in the Souixon were anyone can hunt on a general tag. If...... they did implement spike only you would hope the number of tags would be generous. But I realy feel this would just cause guys to hang it up, at least in this state.

[Galpster]

Imagine being in their shows. How difficult it must be to try to manage our wildlife when you have the native factor. It must be extremely difficult. I think they need to leave it as it is and in the next three years work on some rules for the natives. But we all know that isn't going to happen.

[elksnout]

Hey...lets just all hope this is indeed a rumor.

[bobcat]

At least it would give hunters more "choices" to apply for in the draw, which WAS one of the objectives the WDFW stated in their new proposal for the draw system this year. As it is, all a westside elk tag holder has to apply for is basically Margaret and Toutle. Now we can have bull permits in ALL the westside units!  It will give some of you a place to use your points that you've been saving up all these years!

[SkookumHntr]

I'm sure its *censored* but with are wdfw i wouldn't be surprised, there trying to ruin permit hunting, hell why not ruin the general hunts as well must be there mentality. I know that nature conservancy is the biggest anti hunting group out there and I'm starting to think they have some poll with wdfw. They have ruined 2 of my favorite hunting spots recently. I seen a ad for them in that northwest sportsmans magazine, who ever runs that magazine needs to be fired along with Dave ware with the wdfw!

[bobcat]

The Nature Conservancy is NOT an anti-hunting organization. I've looked at their website and they do a lot for wildlife. They've saved a lot of good wildlife habitat and they DO allow hunting on some of their properties.

[elksnout]

Yeah, it would open up more units to get tags. But we all know that as of now the lions share of the branched bulls taken in those units are raggies. 3, 4, 5 and small sixes. It would take a couple of years to get a decent population of the big dudes wouldn't it ? And if a guy could draw every 3-4 years that would be a darn site better that waiting 12-14 years for the Margret.

[SkookumHntr]

The Nature Conservancy is NOT an anti-hunting organization. I've looked at their website and they do a lot for wildlife. They've saved a lot of good wildlife habitat and they DO allow hunting on some of their properties.

Bobcat you are so out of touch on things its not even funny! And you think a statewide have to draw for permits to hunt branched bulls is good? Oh boy, just stick to your cow hunts there bud, every single comment you make is annoying or at least get a clue what your talking about!

[WDFW-SUX]

The Nature Conservancy is NOT an anti-hunting organization. I've looked at their website and they do a lot for wildlife. They've saved a lot of good wildlife habitat and they DO allow hunting on some of their properties.

Your wrong BC....sorry.  Ive had two places I like to hunt bought and closed by NC. Call them on the phone and talk to them about it. Friends of hunters they are not.

I was even told I couldnt pick mushrooms on some of there property one time.

[SkookumHntr]

One of my favorite hunting areas was bought by them and they completly destroyed the road so there was no access to get through to the upper areas. They are just as bad as PETA.

[WDFW-SUX]

Its a scam IMO..they should donate the land to the BLM or DNR.  They put all of the land in conservation trusts so that they don't have to pay taxes on it but can still regulate the types of activity the public is permitted too on there land.  I think it all should be open to hunting if they are getting tax breaks.....

They dont do anymore for wildlife then any other private property owner.

[bobcat]

They dont do anymore for wildlife then any other private property owner.

Other than prevent land from being turned into nothing but houses and pavement.

[bobcat]

Just one example of how they are not anti-hunting:

What the Conservancy Has Done/Is Doing
In 2000, The Nature Conservancy purchased 42 square miles (about 27,000 acres) of Zumwalt Prairie, the largest single Oregon acquisition in the organization's 50+ year history. In 2006, the Conservancy purchased an additional 6,065 acres, making the preserve Oregon's largest private nature sanctuary.

Since acquiring Zumwalt Prairie Preserve, Conservancy ecologists — as well as academic and agency researchers — have learned much about Zumwalt's natural history and ecology, including:

•effective big game and non-game species management. Working closely with state wildlife managers, the Conservancy annually donates bull elk and buck deer LOP hunting tags to local charitable organizations. In addition to contributing to overall herd management on the larger Zumwalt Prairie, this effort has raised significant funds for the recipient organizations.

[WDFW-SUX]

Why dont they just open all of there land to consumptive users?

Some of the land referenced was commercial range land that was open previously to general seasons...a net loss for hunters.

Its a joke to suggest they like hunting.

[bobcat]

How is it a joke? Look at their website. They work with many pro-hunting organizations such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Pheasants Forever, and also the Fish & Wildlife agencies in many states. Here's an article for you, if you don't believe me:

Today’s sportsmen and sportswomen are a powerful force for conservation
By Hal Herring
When a hunter dreams of a trophy elk, thoughts run to frozen mornings deep in the Rocky Mountains. Minnesota seldom comes to mind, and there’s little reason why it should, since the state issued only five permits to hunt elk last year. Nonetheless, when The Nature Conservancy needed help acquiring a critical 800-acre piece of Minnesota grassland, it was the hunters of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, based in faraway Montana, who stepped up.
Like a large percentage of the other 37.8 million hunters and anglers in the United States, the 150,000 members of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are a powerful force for conservation, albeit one that is often misunderstood by nonhunters.
To be sure, many members of the self-described hook-and-bullet community don’t look like stereotypical environmentalists. It’s no secret, and no wonder, that hunters and nonhunting environmentalists often make each other nervous.
But what may come as a surprise is that sporting and conservation groups, including the Conservancy, frequently turn to each other as partners. And while they may not see eye-to-eye on every issue, what connects them is an understanding that healthy ecosystems mean healthy habitats for game animals.
“Different groups come to the same landscapes for different reasons and at times with different motivations,” says Tom Cassidy, the Conservancy’s director of federal programs, but “we have a common objective of conserving habitat.” He adds: “I can’t imagine not working with hunters and anglers—our shared values are too great.”
“People who don’t hunt should recognize that the motive of the hunters we work with is not simply to increase the numbers of animals for hunting, or even to have more places to hunt,” says Matt Miller, a lifelong hunter who works for the Conservancy in Idaho. “It is a much bigger view of the land and the wildlife. I think of [late Sierra Club leader] David Brower. He loved to climb mountains, but he didn’t work to preserve the mountains just so he’d have a nice place to climb.”
Bart Semcer, a longtime hunter who works on fish and wildlife policy for the Sierra Club, emphasizes the importance of such partnerships: “Sportsmen are the original conservationists. You cannot do it without them.”
The Original Conservationists
The idea that hunters are responsible for providing habitat for the game they hunt, and for the ecosystems that support game and other wildlife, is one of the oldest forms of environmental advocacy in North America, owing its existence to men like Theodore Roosevelt. Born in 1858, Roosevelt grew up steeped in the lore of Western hunting and adventure. But by the time he went west to hunt big game in 1883, he rode on horseback for 10 days across the grasslands of North Dakota before finding a bison to shoot. Roosevelt felt keenly the loss of a legacy that he believed had belonged to all Americans. He also saw, in the ruin of wildlife, the potential ruin of the nation.
When Roosevelt became president, he enacted the most sweeping environmental legislation the world had ever seen. “When he entered the White House in 1901, the idea of conservation had not yet found its way into the public mind,” writes Jim Posewitz, author of Rifle in Hand: How Wild America Was Saved. “When he left office in 1909, he had implanted the idea of conservation into our culture and enriched our future prospects with 230 million acres of designated public forests, wildlife refuges, bird preserves, parks, national monuments, and game ranges.”
Roosevelt’s mentor, the naturalist and hunter George Bird Grinnell, had traveled through the West when the great herds of elk and pronghorn and bison still flowed over the Plains. Grinnell founded the prototypical sporting magazine Forest and Stream (later Field & Stream), and argued for the preservation of the wildlife and wild country that was left. He later founded the first Audubon Society and was instrumental in creating Glacier and Yellowstone national parks.
Together, Roosevelt, Grinnell and nine others founded the Boone and Crockett Club, which called for an end to market hunting, the protection of American bison and the establishment of game laws—radical changes in the way Americans viewed wildlife. (The Boone and Crockett Club is still around; it owns a sprawling ranch on Montana’s Rocky Mountain Front dedicated to wildlife habitat, research and education. The Conservancy holds a conservation easement on the property.)
The low point for North American wildlife is considered to be 1910. By the 1930s, “There was still not much game to hunt anywhere, but there was a lot of hope among American hunters,” writes Posewitz. In that decade, hunters and gun companies sponsored two laws that have funded the most far-reaching restoration of wildlife and habitat in history.
The Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act, popularly know as the Pittman-Robertson Act, created an 11 percent tax on sporting firearms and ammunition and a 10 percent tax on handguns to support wildlife conservation and to promote hunter safety. In the 75 years since it was enacted, Pittman-Robertson has raised more than $5 billion for conservation. Those funds will contribute more than $233 million this year, mainly to support wildlife management areas that provide habitat and public access for everything from hiking and fishing to bird-watching and hunting.
The other law, the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act, requires waterfowl hunters aged 16 and older to possess a valid federal hunting stamp, commonly known as a duck stamp. Sales of the stamps have brought in nearly $700 million since the program’s inception in 1934 and have helped to purchase and establish 5.2 million acres of the National Wildlife Refuge system (see The Stamp of Conservation). During the 2002–2003 hunting season, duck-stamp sales brought in almost $26 million, and 98 cents of every dollar went to purchase habitat for waterfowl—habitat that also serves every other creature that walks, swims, crawls or flies there. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that one-third of the nation’s threatened and endangered species live on one or more of the refuges. 
Stakes are High
To be sure, there will always be issues on which some conservationists and hunters disagree—such as the protection of big carnivores and regulations such as the Endangered Species Act.
But it’s possible to bridge the divide, says Gary Kania, who until recently was the Conservancy’s liaison with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and now works with the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “There are enough goals that are the same,” says Kania, who has also worked for the National Rifle Association. “The NRA is not the Conservancy, but the NRA represents a lot of hunters, and what do hunters want, primarily? They want habitat for wildlife. We may disagree about other things, but we can argue about that later. First, we can use our common goals to leverage resources and get things done now.”
Matt Miller of the Conservancy in Idaho says such partnerships are urgently needed: “I have been a hunter my whole life, growing up in Pennsylvania, and you see all the places that you’ve hunted and fished—the place that I ran my traplines when I was young—get swallowed up by sprawl. Sometime, even in high school, I realized that if we didn’t do something, it would all be gone. It’s why I became a conservationist in the first place.”
The Sierra Club’s Semcer knows there are differences in how environmentalists and hunters view the world, but says, “I’d ask people on either side, ‘Do we have the luxury of questioning people’s motives who want to preserve the natural world?’”
“We are at a point in history where the stakes are way high,” says Semcer, “and if we don’t trust each other, we all lose.”   

HAL HERRING is a contributing editor at Field & Stream and editor at large at New West, an Internet publication covering the Rocky Mountains and Western plains. With more than twenty years in the photography business, KEN REDDING has a portfolio of images ranging from sports and landscapes to golf and interiors. He resides in Grand Junction, Colorado.

[WDFW-SUX]

I give up enjoy your time in Cool aid land. You win.

[bobcat]

Pretty convincing article, wasn't it?

[Bob33]

Check this out from 1998: http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/trail/gt-16.htm

[Curly]

I was told the other day that all of the west side will go to  spike only with draw tags for branch bull. He said it will probably go into affect in the next 3 years. Kind of sucks I remember when they did the spike only hunt about 10 years ago and it sucks watching a really nice bull walk and have to shoot the next stupid spike that came up the hill.So I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens.

I would not be too surprised by that.  I think the new draw system is their plan to work toward implementing some sort of statewide permit system.  It is not going to be because of any biological reason..........even if they try to say it is; it will be about money.

[bowtech721]

I am a little lost on the spike only managment plan... without having done much research on it it just seems to me that that would create an age gap in the elk population after a few years? I dont hunt the eastside so i dont know what its like but i did go over to oak creek yesterday for the hell of it and saw a zillion cows and a ton of nice brached bulls... spikes? not so much. The guy there said that that day they counted like 880 some cows and like 80 some branch bulls and 4 spikes... is that unusual or a result of spike hunting ? i really have no idea and am just wondering because it seems odd... also i only was able to pick out a very small number of smaller younger branch bulls like 3s and 4s... if someone could fill me in that would be great