Colockum 5pt MIN???

[chester]

Goldtip. i just re read that. yea it came off that way. and no i dont think that of you i have read alot of your posts on here.and overall think your a pretty good guy. Im just saying raising the prices isnt going to do any good. If i could afford it. id buy land, plant food plots and have my own little slice. but its just not the case. Main point is if we give more money to the wdfw you lose hunters,makes it harder for people coming into the sport and the wdfw will raise them again. no matter how much you give them they are still going to piss it away. Its already costing several times what it did when i started. and im not seeing how increasing license fees will make things better?seems like the negatives out weigh the positives by a long shot.

[DOUBLELUNG]

I am a proponent of any-bull, permit-only elk hunting in Eastern WA.  If we are going to have general seasons, though, better a maximum antler point restriction (true spike, spike, spike and 2-point) than a minimum antler point restriction.  Putting all the hunting pressure on the breeder bulls is not a good plan.  I would also like to see enough road closures that tribal harvest would be irrelevant, and elk would have enough security they would remain on public ground through the season. 

[colockumelk]

Wow this thing blew up. That's cool. You guys have alot of valid points. I obviously would like it to go to permit only in ghetto Coloclym but as long as the status quo remains the WDFW wont do it. Although I think if go end enough pressure it can happen. But if the WDFW wont go for permit only in the colockum Id like to give 5 or 6 point min a shot. Because its obvious spike o ly doesn't work.  The biggest thing they can do is close some roads down.

[GoldTip]

Goldtip. i just re read that. yea it came off that way. and no i dont think that of you i have read alot of your posts on here.and overall think your a pretty good guy. Im just saying raising the prices isnt going to do any good. If i could afford it. id buy land, plant food plots and have my own little slice. but its just not the case. Main point is if we give more money to the wdfw you lose hunters,makes it harder for people coming into the sport and the wdfw will raise them again. no matter how much you give them they are still going to piss it away. Its already costing several times what it did when i started. and im not seeing how increasing license fees will make things better?seems like the negatives out weigh the positives by a long shot.

Well I am glad you don't think that of me, there may be others here that do but I don't care to be honest.  Although I will admit that I do have a diesel truck and a toyhouler and quads.  This year when we went down to the Dayton unit we took one quad.  It never got started just rolled out the ramp and parked.  Then it did get started when we left empty handed 5 days later to get it back on the trailer while we burned boot leather the rest of the time trying to avoid the orange hordes.  

I think we probably feel the same way about hunting, we both want a chance to do it.  Maybe I'm a little older than you, (maybe not) you've learned to use the tons of hunters to your advantage, me I just don't want to see tons of hunters.  I go to Montana and Idaho most years not because I kill huge animals, but because I can hunt all day without sometimes seeing another hunter and that's the experience I want as much as just an opportunity.  I've killed some nice animals in those states, but most were when I was growing up there in Montana or because I still have tons of family there.  I guess we will have to disagree in that I think a reduced number of hunters during each season would produce a better hunting experience and help bring in more hunters, as I believe there are more leaving the sport due to over crowding than due to price.  Although I can see your point as well.  

And yes everyone I know Bone addict goes places and never see's other hunters, but he's half bigfoot with a camera for eyeballs.  I just can't hang with him......  

[chester]

It may just be that. You grew up in montana. I grew up in SW washington were herds of orange are the norm every elk season. Different experiences and different views. no big deal 

[runamuk]

I agree with Runamuk, She makes a good point! I would like to see a 5pt min. I still frown on locking up gates on roads. Patrole the roads and enforce laws on the books, but dont lock me out of public land, I have done nothing wrong.

you dont have to lock all the gates just some of them...those areas create an escapement for the elk and deer but can still be hunted on foot......or with horses or bicycles .....you aren't being locked out, you simply cannot drive to every corner.  They do that all over over here just certain roads that the gates are closed for winter for elk....you still can hunt it...well except when some brilliant genius decides the week of elk season is the week to log and the logging operation going on means zero access even on foot in an elk area set aside for the elk.....thanks bunches whoever had that brilliant idea

[bobcat]

Goldtip's idea- I like it. It wouldn't be much different than permit only really, but at least you could plan on a hunt every other year. The issue being debated about the increase in the price of an elk tag, and the decrease in hunters, well the only reason for the increase is to make up for the loss of tag sales. The WDFW would be getting the same amount of money from elk tag sales, to be "pissed away." I don't understand how it could price a person out of elk hunting. You'd only be hunting every other year, so you'd come out ahead money wise. Just think of all the money you'd save on gas alone, in the year that you didn't hunt elk. It would for sure be more than $43. So I just don't see how that's a valid argument for not raising the price of an elk tag. It only makes sense- if elk tag numbers were cut in half, the price should be doubled so there is no loss in revenue. They'd have to do the same thing if they went to permit only. And for those who must hunt every year, you could just go with friends or family when you don't have a tag. This state is going to have to do something different in the way elk are managed. There's just too many hunters and not enough elk. Simple as that.

[stickslinger]

plain and simple close all dirt rds. leading to the clockum this would not only make it hard on the poachers but also the joy riders that tear up the hill sides and keep the animals running year round

[fremont]

People say WDFW won't ever go permit only because of loss of revenue.  Heck, I think it'll draw MORE revenue.

EXAMPLE
Today:  3,000 hunters pay $50 per license = $150,000 revenue

Future:  3,000 hunters pay $10 each for permit chance:  $30,000
            1,000 successful hunters pay $150 each for permit:  $150,000
            Future total:  $180,000

[thomasmx]

Elk in east WA will never go to permit only because the WDFW loves the money they get from spike tags

I know and its such b.s. because there are such nice  bulls up there!

[Buckrub]

By the comments I can tell there will never be a consensus by hunters.

This coming from hunters who think the "Quality Bull Permits" actually improved chances of drawing a bull tag....Laughable 

The state doesn't give a rip about the hunters just the money... in an effort to sell permits they dangle the few good bulls there for all to see while hunting spikes.

If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.

General season antler restriction ...LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE... If a spike can escape a mature bull has a better chance of escapement.
You want a "quality bull permit" give permits for the rut.
Hunters are always looking out for themselves when they should be looking out for the welfare of the herds and the future of the HUNTERS.

When does common sense prevail?  Call like I see it.

[bobcat]

If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.

How do you figure that? It seems to me it would be more like every other year or every third year. Of course it would depend on which particular permit you were applying for. Some would take longer than others. If the number of elk permits allocated was 50% of the number of tags they now sell, I would think that on average a person would be hunting elk every other year.

Why is it that states such as Oregon can have permit only elk hunting and it works just fine, but people say it won't work here?

[Lowedog]

By the comments I can tell there will never be a consensus by hunters.

This coming from hunters who think the "Quality Bull Permits" actually improved chances of drawing a bull tag....Laughable  

The state doesn't give a rip about the hunters just the money... in an effort to sell permits they dangle the few good bulls there for all to see while hunting spikes.

If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.

General season antler restriction ...LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE... If a spike can escape a mature bull has a better chance of escapement.
You want a "quality bull permit" give permits for the rut.
Hunters are always looking out for themselves when they should be looking out for the welfare of the herds and the future of the HUNTERS.

When does common sense prevail?  Call like I see it.

What's laughable is those that refuse to give up the guarantee of a general season elk hunt every year so they can go to elk camp and party with their buddies every year.

Permit only is the best answer to provide quality bulls to hunt in good numbers.  I don't think a person will have to wait 10yrs to draw.  Even if it was every 5 years I would be happy with that.  I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag.  I don't hunt for spikes or cows so having a chance at any bull every few years would be just fine with me.

[Buckrub]

[/quote]

What's laughable is those that refuse to give up the guarantee of a general season elk hunt every year so they can go to elk camp and party with their buddies every year.

Permit only is the best answer to provide quality bulls to hunt in good numbers.  I don't think a person will have to wait 10yrs to draw.  Even if it was every 5 years I would be happy with that.  I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag.  I don't hunt for spikes or cows so having a chance at any bull every few years would be just fine with me.
[/quote]
It's not the hunter who refuses to give up the guarantee of general season elk... it's the game dept. that is unwilling to give up general season hunters based on money.

"I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag"
17 years without elk hunting...my point exactly.
What makes one think they would get a permit every couple of years?  Change the whole state or change the small area left that isn't antler restriction

[Buckrub]

Why is it that states such as Oregon can have permit only elk hunting and it works just fine, but people say it won't work here?


Good question... Do you trust this state would manage like Oregon? have you hunted Oregon? Thousands of permits...similar to a general season.
Most hunters want a permit only to ensure a quality bull.... won't happen.. the rich and the tribes are getting the quality bull and the scrappers are hunting spikes with a slim chance of ever hunting a bull.