If the East Side Went to Permit Only!!!

[funkster]

I have no idea, that is the biologists' job to figure the numbers out. Where did you get your numbers? I can tell you that there was not 7,800 people that applied for archery bull elk permits. I added the numbers up and came up with about that, but that is not the number of people applying, it is the number of times a hunt got applied for, if that makes sense (probably doesn't)

So if every person who applied for an archery bull elk permit in the 300 units put in for 4 choices, you can divide that 7,800 by 4 and that will give you the number of people that applied. I'm guessing not everybody would apply for 4 choices. The average might be 2, so divide it in half and 3,900 people applied.

I'm not sure where you got the 5200 people archery hunting in the 300 units. I haven't found any report that gives that info. Unless you were looking at the 2007 harvest reports. In 2008 they left out all that information. All they give you is the number of animals killed per GMU, not the number of hunters.

The 3,900 was exactly what I was thinking too but didn't know how to explain it.

I got the 5,200 hunters from the 2007 harvest report the newest info they had.

[Sawbuck]

And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls,population and cows.

Well I will tell you that around 70% of yearling bulls ARE killed in the Colockum every year.  Then another 10% die from natural causes.  Yearling bulls have a 10% mortality rate every year.  (ie wounding deaths, cougars, disease, injury)

2nd of all the elk in the Joe Watt feeding station is part of the YAKIMA elk herd, not the Colockum elk herd.  So you really don't think an 80% mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped.  Wow what a bold statement.  You really don't care do you??  That statement truly says something about your priorities.  Just kill them all right???


The Colockum elk herd is also very different from the Yakima elk herd in regards to migration.  2/3 of the Colockum elk herd live east of Highway 97.  In short they don't migrate much.  Where the Yakima elk herd is the opposite.  2/3 or more stay high until the snow comes.  So aerial surveys on the Colockum herd are VERY, VERY accurate.  Where the Yakima surveys can be as much as 30% off.  But who cares right kill em all off.

I know the Watt feed station is part of the Yakima herd. I brought it up as an example of why I don't believe your plan will work. As far as the spike mortality rate goes, I was merely observing that if the rate of the herd at the Watt feed station was anywhere near that, that it doesn't appear to be a problem. If it's not that high, why would we manage other elk such as the Yakima herd with the same plan as the elk in the Colockum? That just doesn't make sense. Regarding what I care about, because you don't know me, you aren't in a position to tell me what I do or do not care about.

Closer to my home is a herd of elk that had many of the same issues that you have described in the Colockum. The Nooksack herd hasn't had a general season for years, and is basicly permit only except for the outlying areas and damage hunts. It wouldn't make sense for the WDFW to implement the same management plan it has for the Nooksack herd for all of western Washington, just like it doesn't make sense for all of eastern Washington to have the same plan that the Colockum has. Maybe what they did in the Nooksack needs to be done in the Colockum, but that is for state to decide. I've said it before that I don't think the current permit system that we have is perfect, but it is much better than having to draw a tag to hunt elk in eastern Washington. If a specific area has an issue deal with that area, don't change the whole eastside.

[Sawbuck]

In order to implement a good elk plan, you need a plan that is suitable to the most people where you can accomplished the goal of bull escapement to meet management objectives and meet public acceptance.

Jeez, can't beleive I have to explain this. 

Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....

Do you get the idea? By putting some Draw-Only and some OTC in each region you devise a plan that a greater number of people can live with.

A very wise man once told me, "The best plan is a plan where everyone wins."     

Thank you for spelling it out 

[bobcat]

Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....

All the things you listed can be had with permit only elk hunting, with the exception of hunting every year. And for that I say too bad. Too many hunters, not enough elk. Some people will have to grow up and realize that life just isn't fair.  

And besides, I think EVERYBODY would like to hunt every year. But you say they're not willing to wait? Then go hunt another state that has more elk, or go help other people on their hunt in the years when you don't draw a tag. Or hunt bears, or birds, or coyotes.

Jeez, can't believe I have to explain this.   

[sako223]

We already have a permit draw system and Odd/Even will allow everyone to hunt every year while cutting hunters in half during general season.
I have proposed this to several life hunters and have had zero negative feedback. In fact all agreed with little thought. It does not seem to carry complexities of other ideas either, or the risk of not hunting for several years.
Frustration with crowded season is obvious. Numbers can be adjusted within our current draw system with a stroke of the keyboard.


If we go to permit only I will be out for deer & elk hunting. I see no reason to pay and wait not knowing if I'll get a tag year after year.

[bobcat]

I wouldn't have a problem with your odd/even plan. Sounds good to me and like you say, less complex than other options. I just don't think the WDFW would go for it.

[bearpaw]

Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....

All the things you listed can be had with permit only elk hunting, with the exception of hunting every year. And for that I say too bad. Too many hunters, not enough elk. Some people will have to grow up and realize that life just isn't fair.  

And besides, I think EVERYBODY would like to hunt every year. But you say they're not willing to wait? Then go hunt another state that has more elk, or go help other people on their hunt in the years when you don't draw a tag. Or hunt bears, or birds, or coyotes.

Jeez, can't believe I have to explain this.   

bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far most hunters want time in the field. If you want trophy hunting in this state (we are both of this mindset) you need to find a plan that can somehow satisffy the masses. Thw WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority to satisfy a few trophy hunters.

Even more importantly in this argument, WDFW is probably not going to give up revenue raised with annual tag sales. The biggest problem I see in so many arguments made by hunters is their own self interest without consideration for other hunters.

Jeez     (that's in good spirit my friend)

[bobcat]

Who said the goal of draw only is "trophy hunting." That would all be dependent on how many tags were issued in each GMU.

[huntnphool]

Save your breath Bearpaw

[bearpaw]

Who said the goal of draw only is "trophy hunting." That would all be dependent on how many tags were issued in each GMU.

OK my mistake, I assumed...I will rephrase with care:

bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.

Additionally important in this discussion, WDFW can not afford to lose the revenue raised with annual elk tag sales. A winning elk management strategy would need to incorporate a means to develop revenue for the WDFW, a means to improve bull escapement, a means to offer improved trophy opportunity, a means to offer improved success for meat hunters, and a means to maximize the number of hunter days in the field.

The biggest problem I see in so many proposals, is the display of a hunter's own self interest without consideration for other hunter's interests. 

[high country]

the only problem I see with even odd design is this.....if my number is the opposite of my pard/dad/son......etc, that is going to cause some heartburn

[bearpaw]

I agree with your concern high coountry, most states allow group applications, where all draw or none, in order to accomodate parties. I always apply alone in this state, not sure if they currently allow party apps here or not?

[bobcat]

A. Maximum group sizes are determined for each category. If
a group application is drawn, all hunters in the group will receive
a special hunting season permit and each hunter in the group can take
an animal. If the number of permits available in a hunt category
is less than the maximum group size, then the maximum group size is
equal to the number of permits.
i. Maximum group size for deer categories is 8.
ii. Maximum group size for elk categories is 8.
iii. Maximum group size for bear categories is 2.
iv. Maximum group size for cougar categories is 2.
v. Maximum group size for mountain goat categories is 2.
vi. Maximum group size for bighorn sheep categories is 2.
vii. Maximum group size for fall turkey categories is 4.

[bobcat]

bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.

No I'm not missing the point. It's just that I think it's more important for the WDFW to manage the state's elk properly than to cater to us hunters. What the point of having an unlimited number of elk tags if there are no elk or very few elk to hunt  A loss of revenue from a decrease in tag sales is an easy problem to fix. Just increase the price of a tag to make up the difference. So if tags were cut by 50% you simply double the price.

[alanger]

bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.

No I'm not missing the point. It's just that I think it's more important for the WDFW to manage the state's elk properly than to cater to us hunters. What the point of having an unlimited number of elk tags if there are no elk or very few elk to hunt  A loss of revenue from a decrease in tag sales is an easy problem to fix. Just increase the price of a tag to make up the difference. So if tags were cut by 50% you simply double the price.

THey don't cater us hunters, they cater $$$$$$


THe prices for tags are already rediculous for wa. they are driving hunters away. Look at other states as a resident, their tags arent 30-40 dollars a tag, they are like 10-25. They haven't made much effort to cater the hunters. just the revenue.