Response to the East Side Permit Only Idea.

[colockumelk]

For those that do not know.  Like always during the off-season we need something to piss and moan about.  It's also a good time to talk and debate about topics that are important to us.  As always we know that our current elk managment system on the east side is broken.  So many of us have been debating what should be done.  So this poll is designed to show which of the four or five main ideas YOU think would work best. 

[rougheye]

Ther are some really good ideas here but if we want to be realistic , its really hard to think about this being a reality because i dont trust the wdfw to not screw it up as soon as we turn our back . Since i dont trust them i cant vote to take any opportunity away . I will just take what they give me and work my ass off to make the most of it until they can prove they want to manage the right way . Very good ideas though with the right people in higher places .

[bearpaw]

I don't see this option:

Half of the GMU's Permit only and the other half OTC. (You can apply for permit only GMU's and still hunt OTC that year)


You have a better chance of selling that idea to WDFW since it will raise more revenue by having far more applicants.

This way they get more permit application fees and still sell licenses.

[bobcat]

bearpaw, the increased hunting pressure would be terrible for the otc areas if they did it the way you suggest.

[sako223]

The Odd/Even idea is not quite spelled out correctly.

Example: Determined by last number of WILD ID for general season

2010 Deer/Odd   Elk/Even

2011 Deer/Even   Elk/Odd

Current draw system left intact with points allowing adjustments.
This guarantees big game hunting every year for each hunter plus draw, and freedom to hunt all but closed units.

[bearpaw]

bearpaw, the increased hunting pressure would be terrible for the otc areas if they did it the way you suggest.

That's basically already the way it is for OTC areas, and like colockum said, make the OTC fringe areas.

Quotas could be used to limit sales (if needed), bio's can figure that out.

[Elkaholic daWg]

  See other thread for my thoughts

[fisheral87]

IE you get drawn for branch bulls 3-4 times more often than you do now.

Not necessarily true. Statistically maybe. Not sure it should be in the survey question unless you are trying to swing it your way? That is the way it looks to me.

[bobcat]

I think the "being drawn 3-4 times more often" would be true as long as the number of applicants stayed the same. That's the unknown variable. You would think it would have to increase by some amount. Whether it would be significant or not, who knows. But I'd guess in the worst case, a person could expect to draw a bull tag at least twice as often as now. And when you do, your hunting experience would be so much better, with more elk and less hunters.

[high country]

if managment is the true necessity, just keep trimming the season back.....afterall what is 3 less days in a 9 day season?

[bearpaw]

yes, I think apps would increase...

[luvtohnt]

The Odd/Even idea is not quite spelled out correctly.

Example: Determined by last number of WILD ID for general season

2010 Deer/Odd   Elk/Even

2011 Deer/Even   Elk/Odd

Current draw system left intact with points allowing adjustments.
This guarantees big game hunting every year for each hunter plus draw, and freedom to hunt all but closed units.

Your personal selection would stay the same the only thing that woul dchange is the year. It would look more like this.

2010 deer/even   Elk/odd

2011 deer/even   Elk/odd

Brandon

[funkster]

The Odd/Even idea is not quite spelled out correctly.

Example: Determined by last number of WILD ID for general season

2010 Deer/Odd   Elk/Even

2011 Deer/Even   Elk/Odd

Current draw system left intact with points allowing adjustments.
This guarantees big game hunting every year for each hunter plus draw, and freedom to hunt all but closed units.

Your personal selection would stay the same the only thing that woul dchange is the year. It would look more like this.

2010 deer/even   Elk/odd

2011 deer/even   Elk/odd

Brandon

So what happens to the special permits? Do they just stay the way they are now?

[3dvapor]

increased revenue could be generated by non resident hunters also with a permit only system by them now only being forced to pay for hunting license and appl. fee.  especially when quality of hunting increases.  though 10percent fewer tags would go to residents.  other states have been robbing me for years

[bobcat]

Where do you get the 10% figure?

[sako223]

Your personal selection would stay the same the only thing that would change is the year. It would look more like this.

2010 deer/even   Elk/odd

2011 deer/even   Elk/odd

Brandon

How could that possibly work out? Not my idea.

I clearly stated how the odd/even would work.

The Odd/Even idea is not quite spelled out correctly.

Example: Determined by last number of WILD ID for general season

2010 Deer/Odd   Elk/Even

2011 Deer/Even   Elk/Odd

Current draw system left intact with points allowing adjustments.
This guarantees big game hunting every year for each hunter plus draw, and freedom to hunt all but closed units.

[fisheral87]

It is a good point about out of state hunters. They would dilute that draw percentage as well.

[colockumelk]

What do you mean Sako.  That's your idea the odd/even thing.  I think he was asking how it would work.  If the amount of permits would remain the same or if they'd go up.  I personally think the permits would increase each year as the number of bulls increased.

Now for my Colockum Permit idea you say it would displace hunter.  That is true there is no way around that.  But, what would you suggest we do?  What part of the Colockum herd will be finished by 2014 if we don't do anything?  How does that sit well with any of you?  Are you in denial or do you not care?  Do some of you think that it's your God given right to hunt in the Colockum and kill of every elk in that herd?  If so let me tell all of you it is NOT your right to hunt in the Colockum.  It is a PRIVILEGE that WE are ABUSING!!!!

In any case with the amount of permits that would be given out if it went permit only here's your odds to draw. 

Method.  Take amount of permits x points squared and divide it by number of applicants squared.  Gives you a percentage of a chance to draw.  Example  (301x3) squared. / 2412 (squared) = Chance to get drawn

RIFLE   Archery          Muzzle Loader
1 Point:  1.5% Chance                    1 Point   13% Chance                1 Point   5% Chance
2 Points:  6.2% Chance                   2 Points  53% Chance                2 Points  20% Chance
3 Points:  14% Chance                    3 Points  119% Chance              3 Points   44% Chance
4 Points: 25% Chance                                                                  4 Points    78% Chance
5 Points:  39% Chance                                                                  5 Points   176% Chance
6 Points:  56% Chance                       
7 Points: 76% Chance                       
8 Points: 100% Chance                     

[3dvapor]

Where do you get the 10% figure?

Alot of states set aside a percentage of total permits to non resident only usually somewhere between 5-20percent. I threw 10 in as a fair example of how things would possibly change.

[sako223]

Method.  Take amount of permits x points squared and divide it by number of applicants squared.  Gives you a percentage of a chance to draw.  Example  (301x3) squared. / 2412 (squared) = Chance to get drawn

RIFLE   Archery          Muzzle Loader
1 Point:  1.5% Chance                    1 Point   13% Chance                1 Point   5% Chance
2 Points:  6.2% Chance                   2 Points  53% Chance                2 Points  20% Chance
3 Points:  14% Chance                    3 Points  119% Chance              3 Points   44% Chance
4 Points: 25% Chance                                                                  4 Points    78% Chance
5 Points:  39% Chance                                                                  5 Points   176% Chance
6 Points:  56% Chance                      
7 Points: 76% Chance                      
8 Points: 100% Chance                      

My earlier reply was misrepresented as I was trying to address two things in one post quickly.

With current season thousands of hunter hunt the clockum general season. With permit only these hunter would be displaced to alter numbers and pressure in other units.
5 rifle special permits get 2412 applicants. That would take 482 years to guarantee a draw if no one got drawn twice.
By increasing the number of tags to 300 at the current number of applicants 2412 it would take 8 years to guarantee a draw if no one drew twice or more. But with a permit only system you could count on the number of applicants increasing therefore displacing the odds again.

As stated projecting mathematically using current application numbers implies a guaranteed draw within 8 years. Several realistic problems throw those numbers though.
Application numbers will go up maybe double or triple. Double application will turn 8 years into 16.
Applicants can and do get drawn multiple times which also stretches out the fill.
So 100% is not 100% in this case. Odds are odds and drawn is 100%

With the odd/even and current draw idea, the current allotment for cow permits in the yakima area may be reduced more than half this year in an effort to increase herd size again. The current draw system has always been adjustable.
This appeals to me by allowing hunters to participate in big game hunting every year. General season would then see half the hunters at a current success rate of 10% or less. I think permit success rate can reach 40% or better. This does not account for variables like weather.

With hunters being about 5% of the population we don't need a huge drop in participants for several years in a row. Which is what I see with permit only. Odd/even keeps everyone in the field every year and still participating in trophy or meat draws.

[colockumelk]

Sako don't get me wrong I'm completey on board with your idea.  However just because the Colockum would be permit only it doesn't mean people couldn't hunt the Yakima GMU's or the NE or the Blues or the West Side.  The other herds could  handle it.  In any case most of the hunters that hunt the Colockum would either go back to the West Side or would hunt in the low GMU's where unless weather pushes the Elk down there's not much there anyways.  So closing the Colockum down wouldn't hurt the other herds.

It is gonna happen sooner than most people think.  Like I said I am NOT joking when I say if the trend continues there WILL NOT be a breeding Colockum elk herd in 6 years. 

[sako223]

Well I agree harvest has to be cut there and across the board.
That is why I have looked for a balanced idea.
The other biggest reason is how to keep hunters in the field, and by shifting hunter numbers elsewhere will increase hunter frustration levels which are already high.

[colockumelk]

Our state if it continues managing game the way it has been will continue to lose hunters.  That has been a continuous trend since 1990.  The reason is because with the poor quality of hunting we have here in this state people are getting fed up and quiting.  THAT is why we are losing hunters. 

From 2002-2009 the branch bull population has dropped by 78% in the Colockum.
 In 2002  there were 391 branch bulls.  In 2009 there is only 85.  Thats an average drop of 11% a year.  If this trend continues like I said before by 2014 there will not be enough branch bulls to breed enough elk to sustain the herd.  IE no more Colockum elk herd.  The WDFW even said that the "True Spike thing will only  help by 10-15%.  The ONLY way is Permit only.  I'm not saying forever but at least long enough to get the bull to cow ratio back to 15:100.  It is currently 2.83:100      Like I said before the area is too open with too many roads.  Here's a break down of the spike survival rate from 2003-2008.  Keep in mind on top of this 10% of these spikes that lived through the Colockum slaughter will die of natural causes. 

Here's my sources
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/09trend.pdf  PG 78

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/09trend.pdf  Pg 77
2003  23%
2004  24%
2005  12%
2006  19%
2007  26%
2008  17%

[sako223]

I recognize the problems and also know there are other contributing factors. Compared to the yakima herd there are more agriculture clashes with unfenced areas, people feeding elk, winter rec. Elk on the golf course.

WdfW shows about 8% success rate with a harvest of 303 bulls 121 cows for 08. This pencils out to about 5300 hunters.
With even/odd this would be reduced to 2650 hunters at 8% success rate would be around 151 bulls 60 cows.

[bobcat]

What if  hunters are reduced to 2,650 and the success rate goes up to 16%?

[sako223]

Well although not likely, but obviously if the success rate went to 16% the harvest would be the same at 303 bulls 121 cows. Total 424 elk with 2650 hunters still in the field.
In 1992 there were about 12,854 hunters with a success rate of 11% harvesting 801 bulls 613 cows. With the hunter reduction to less than half that in 08 did not raise the success rate to 16%. It is reduced to 8%.
Equally if the proposed 652 permits achieved the going success of permit hunts it could easily exceed 40-70% or 260-456 elk. with 652 hunters in the field.

[colockumelk]

Sako your slightly off.  The 652 permits is across the board rifle/ML/archery.  Most archery bull hunts only have a 12-24% success rate.  ML success is 35-45% and Rifle is 45-50%.  So really the average would be about 1/3 of the 652 permits would kill a bull.  So only around 220-260 would get a branch bull. 

Sako thank you for researching data and using real numberst to back up your arguments.  I really do appreciate that.  Too often people call me an idiot but have no data to back up their argument.  One guy told me that the answer is to make it 5pt min in the Colockum for everyone    So again thanks. 

[sako223]

Well I said about as I see no reason to get it down to the nit on this thread.
The reason is, I see why the WDFW has questioned your numbers as radical.
Just like this poll thread you have not posted it properly to begin with and have obviously slanted most every argument to your favor instead of presenting the whole picture.
The colockum herd has been at a lower size before.
You have presented this thread as whole eastside then defend it by the colockum numbers you present.
By going permit only on the eastside would displace up to 37,000 hunters for yakima and colockum by WDFW numbers.
How many years would it take to Guarantee a draw with that many hunters displaced? Lifetime plus?
Another facet of penalizing hunters is letting the elk go to other means of harvest. In recent years hunting permits sacrificed by general/permit hunters have been more than doubled to manage damage problems.
Then comes the millions lost in spending by hunters, calculated to be about $1000 per hunter. Huge loss for local economies.
So after scanning the same sources you cherry picked a slanted case, I can punch a lot lot of holes in your theory.
The worst part is it takes a ton of hunters out of the field and cuts off personal spending crippling the whole program.

With Even/Odd @ current hunter numbers the harvest would be lower than your permit system with four times or more hunters in the field.
They would be able to hunt big game every year and spend money to help the economy especially in the smaller towns.
Then we need to address the secondary issues which will never go away and in fact will get worse each year that we wait.

[bobcat]

Sako,  Have you presented your plan to anybody at the WDFW?  If not you need to write a letter to Dave Ware and/or Jerry Nelson. Want their email addresses?

[sako223]

I have not presented anything except here and to hunting friends.
This plan only came to mind as a compromise after reading threads here in the past couple months.
I would be fine with the WDFW scrutinizing it.

[colockumelk]

Sako thank you for researching data and using real numberst to back up your arguments.  I really do appreciate that.  

Wow remind me never to compliment you again.  In return you blast me and call my info biased and slanted.  Real classy.  FYI I posted the East Side permit info in response to people like you that cried "But where would all the Colockum hunters go to."  I also posted it to show how many permits they could give out if instead of harvesting spikes they gave out permits and harvested them as Adult Bulls.  Not baby elk.  

As for the Colockum it does need to go to permit only.  And yes I'd love to see you punch holes in my theory about the Colockum.  Punch a hole in this.  I dare you.  2002 391 Bulls.  2009 85 bulls.  A drop of 78%.  Average spike survival rate = 17%.  If the Colockum elk herd were humans it would be GENOCIDE!  And by the way a healthy herd has a spike survival rate of 50%.  With your "odd/even" plan it would only get it up to 34%.  So it still wouldn't work.  And unlike you, I have spoken to the WDFW about this.  And I was told my numbers were withing + or - 5%.  So no the word radical was never used in our discussion. 

[colockumelk]

Then we need to address the secondary issues which will never go away and in fact will get worse each year that we wait.

I agree but while Yakama's kill 30-40 bulls a year we kill 10X that a year.  The Yakama's kill twice that in the Yakima herd but it doesn't affect them why?  Because they have a high enough recruitment that it doesn't matter.  Our recruitment is like walking on a tight rope.  Any deviance whatsoever makes you fall off.

[sako223]

Well from memory your numbers change slightly as we go and you state things prefaced as fact that may not be 100%.
Yes the Yakama's or tribal hunting is a known problem.
There are other issues that will directly affect herd survival rates. First my harvest rates may be partly cows. Secondly we need to seriously address agricultural damage and the resulting harvest by Master Hunters(1 or 2 tags) or landowners. I don't like seeing landowner tags being sold for $5-10,000 or handed out to political buddies.

Ending archery either-sex hunts should have shored up the Colockum's cow elk numbers and created better calf production, but ongoing damage control hunts have been taking roughly 250 cows per season, about 100 more than the bow-and-arrow guys gave up.

These kill numbers won't go away until we work on it. With homes popping up everywhere it will get worse. Fencing is an old but effective start.
Another adjustment can be made to the season, run Wed thru Fri, or simply cut off the last weekend which is often desperation hunting anyway.
Hunter days are always a wake up figure when calculating pressure and the opposite being the effect on the economy.
Example
5000 colockum hunters averaging 10 days in the field is 50,000 hunter days.
12,000 colockum hunters averaging 10 days in the field is 120,000 hunter days.
These figures reflect a lot of hunting pressure and fuel, food clothes, tires, repairs and so on.
So simply trimming 2 days could result in 10-24,000 hunter days in the field offset.
By not getting overly creative(complicated) there appear to be many ways to address harvest.

I got the word Radical from your post.

Having been to a WDFW meeting I can honestly say that the committee is in WAY, WAY, WAY over their  heads.  While I gave my speal on why the Colockum should be permit only, one of them asked me "where did you get those radical statistics from."  My response "FROM THE WDFW WEBSITE."  His response.  "Oh!"

[colockumelk]

I appologize I got hit pretty hard in the head today (literally) was in a bad mood.  I seriously appologize blowing up at you Sako.  I re-read my post and realized I sort of shot from the hip.  I agree 150% with what you said.  As far as damage hunts go the "Master Hunter" thing is a band-aid.  Why is the Yakima GMU's fenced but not the Colockum?  I think that closing the last weekend would be an excellant start.  I also agree with your odd/even thing.  Basically anything to help out the herd. 

I see where you may have thought they thought I was radical.  I should have explained why they asked me where I got my numbers.  They meant where I got the numbers of the reduction in branch bull numbers and spike survival rates.  I guess you're right they did think I was radical and exagerating.  That is until I told him my numbers came from their bio's reports, harvest data etc.  Sort of hard for that chairman to call me a liar when my facts come from their website. 

I just interviewed a bio sako and learned a ton of really interesting stuff.  When I'm done with my paper comparing PMU 33 (GMU 336, 346, 342 and 340) to the Colockum you'll see.  Got some cool behind the scenes info.  Again sorry dude.  Sometimes my temper is short. 

[sako223]

It's cool, I'm fine with debating all the numbers. No matter the outcome.
Finding a compromise is not easy and selling it won't be a breeze either.
My remedies are developing with each post.
The two limits to work with are keep hunters in the field and reduce current harvest numbers. These two clash but it is doable.
Fencing will be hard to find money for but could pay for itself quickly. Fencing has a way of regulating access too. At times escapement is provided by fencing.
Many orchards pay for their own fencing as wildlife damage has lasting effects on trees and hurts irrigation systems. Pasture and hay fields don't pay enough return to warrant this.
Hopefully WDFW will be receptive enough to consider some tweaking.

[colockumelk]

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/elk/colockum_oct06.pdf pg 19

Sako you wouldn't beleive how fast it would pay for itself.  Check out how much each year the WDFW has to pay out to damages.  It's BS.  This is what pisses me off about the local farmers.  And someone please explain this to me.  The hay farmers claim the elk damage their fields.  But.....   every winter you see cattle wintering and grazing in the hayfields.  So how does the cattle not jack up the fields but the elk do???

I like your idea of limiting the season to like 6 days.  While probably 80% of the harvested elk are shot on opening weekend it would still help out alot.  I've got a PM for ya sako.

[bearpaw]

I haven't voted on this poll yet.

I was just wondering why you worded option 4 so that you can't apply and then hunt the OTC areas.

[bobcat]

He has it that way because if you could apply for the permit only GMU's and also hunt the OTC units in the same year, the OTC areas would get way too much hunting pressure.

[bearpaw]

Due to that, I don't see an option that I wish to vote for.

[huntnphool]

Due to that, I don't see an option that I wish to vote for.

Don't worry, they will just "deem" the options they want through.

[colockumelk]

I haven't voted on this poll yet.

I was just wondering why you worded option 4 so that you can't apply and then hunt the OTC areas.

I thought that's how you said they do that in Utah.  That one was your idea. 

[grundy53]

ever since the west side went to 3 point or better there has been way more elk and alot bigger bulls. what if the eastside went to this?

[colockumelk]

You can't do this on the east side like you do on the west side.  The reason is the terrain.  On the east side its far too open the elk wouldn't have any place to escape the modern rifle season.  The west side is so thick they have lots of escapement.  The range of a scoped rifle doesn't help as much as the open east side.  Also on the west side most of the land is forest service land that you have to walk into.  Over on the east side you can drive almost anywhere.  This is why going to 3pt min wouldn't work.

Back before 1994 it was any bull and when you went to the feeding station seeing a rag horn 5pt was a rare thing.  Now they are a dime a dozen. 

[grundy53]

thanks colockum. makes sense. i guess its a good thing i hunt elk on the west side. lol

[colockumelk]

I'll be joining you shortly.  I suck at cow hunting with a bow they are way to smart.  Every year I call in branch bulls so that I can look at them. Yessir hunting stupid horny bulls is more my style. I'm going west.  Well someday.  I'll be in Alabama for the next two years.  But after that I'll try my hardest to deplete the elk herds near the PCT.