Why out of state?!

[hoyt2002]

wow now that got interesting. Hey we all enjoy different ways of doing things. Swift hunt how you want stay in state and have fun. I'm going to hit my 2 or maybe 3 states and have a good time. Why I go out of state dont really matter I just hunt that way. I got the time the money and the drive to hunt hard have fun and enjoy MY adventure. 

[boneaddict]

Definately good points muleyguy.   

Something else to consider.   How technology effects harvest such as the modernization of weapons,  communication, the ability to get to a spot, optics, mapping systems, GPS, the interenet etc.  AND the acceptance of many of us to utilize this technology. 

[muleyguy]

How technology effects harvest such as the modernization of weapons,  communication, the ability to get to a spot, optics, mapping systems, GPS, the interenet etc.  AND the acceptance of many of us to utilize this technology.

I agree 100%;  it is much easier to hunt longer, farther, harder today, AND to do most of the research from your computer before you even step foot out of the door.........thats why the 200,000 tag holders of today are so much different then the 360,000 tag holders of 1970.......more time in the field and more dedication to the sport.

[fair-chase]

Muleyguy, I completely agree with your assessment. It's about the only argument I have herd that makes any sense without having to go to a draw only system. As far as increasing the tag fees, I am all for it. We are already looking at proposed increase for next year of nearly 33% with absolutely no improvements to how WDFW manages. I would gladly double that increase in order to have a higher quality hunt with better management of our herds. A lot of hunters on the other hand will piss and moan about even the slightest increase in rates. I don't understand it but that's the way it is. Polotics. You would have a hard time convincing the majority of hunters to pay more and hunt less. Of course it wouldn't be less but that is the way it would be perceived. An even harder time convincing WDFW to actually be proactive in management instead of just sitting back collecting tag money. But if you want to persue it, go for it. Heck, I like the idea. I'll be your number 1 fan. Might even show up at the meeting in Olympia with a big sign saying "Muleyguy for Director of WDFW"

Oh yeah, sorry if this thread got off topic.

[bobcat]

Muleyguy, I completely agree with your assessment. It's about the only argument I have herd that makes any sense without having to go to a draw only system.

But his argument IS based on going to draw only for mule deer. He mentions a reduction in tag numbers- well, that's how you would get the reduction, by eliminating general seasons and going to mule deer hunting by draw only.

[Machias]

This thread cracks me up, only guys from this state would be on a bandwagon advocating for less and less hunting time in the field, where most states are increasing hunter time and opportunity in the field.  I think sometime when we think of how f'ed up this state is with the management of it's wildlife we probably should first look in the mirror.  Honestly, if they raise the rates much more I will only hunt out of state.  I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags and TWO turkey tags for $43...total.  I just bought my 18 year old son ONE muzzle loader deer tag here for $45.20.   

[DBHAWTHORNE]

If it isn't easy, count 75% of the "hunters" out.

 
 

 

and I am glad for that.

Me too. I like road hunters.

[Dave Workman]

This thread cracks me up, only guys from this state would be on a bandwagon advocating for less and less hunting time in the field, where most states are increasing hunter time and opportunity in the field.  I think sometime when we think of how f'ed up this state is with the management of it's wildlife we probably should first look in the mirror.  Honestly, if they raise the rates much more I will only hunt out of state.  I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags and TWO turkey tags for $43...total.  I just bought my 18 year old son ONE muzzle loader deer tag here for $45.20.   

\\


Hey, Machias:

I resent that remark.  I'm from this state, 4th generation, and IMHO people who advocate "less" are brain dead from drinking too much WDFW Kool Aid. This crap about permit hunting and raising license fees to compensate for the loss of revenue is the same kind of nutty reasoning we fought tooth and nail back when I was at the old F&H News back in the 1980s.

I used to hear that whine from one of the old agency directors; "we have to settle for less, we're the smallest state with the biggest population" yadda yadda yadda..  Translation: "We're going to do less, deliver mediocre results, and we want to keep hunters out of the woods so they won't see what we're not doing."

The "big" population  stays in the city and swills latte. If they get farther than 10 yards off the sidewalk, pavement or a developed trail they are over their heads.  They run into a guy packing a gun in  the woods, they get the vapors and quickly try to put distance between themselves and us.

[DBHAWTHORNE]

Get rid of "Resource Allocation" because not only did it, by design, reduce the number of hunters, it pits the remaining hunting interests against one another, also by design. So long as we compete with one another for whatever POS seasons the agency and their rubber stamp commissioners give us, we will not be united to hold them accountable.

I agree with you here. This state has the most splintered hunting population I have seen and now that you mention I believe this is one of the largest factors involved.

To be honest most hunters I know are not satisfied with their Game Department. Ohio is the only state I have seen where hunters and the Game Department are a cohesive team.

[Dave Workman]

Get rid of "Resource Allocation" because not only did it, by design, reduce the number of hunters, it pits the remaining hunting interests against one another, also by design. So long as we compete with one another for whatever POS seasons the agency and their rubber stamp commissioners give us, we will not be united to hold them accountable.

I agree with you here. This state has the most splintered hunting population I have seen and now that you mention I believe this is one of the largest factors involved.

To be honest most hunters I know are not satisfied with their Game Department. Ohio is the only state I have seen where hunters and the Game Department are a cohesive team.

It is incredible that you bring up Ohio. Several years ago, I did a comparison between Washington and Ohio for one of my editorials criticizing the WDFW.
Ohio is a state with approximately 20,000 square miles less land mass than Washington and far less public land on which to hunt.
Ohio has one species of deer. Washington has three.
At the time, Ohio's normal deer harvest during a one-week hunting season was approximately 90,000 deer. Washington's harvest was about half.

I think in Ohio they take more than 100,000 deer each season now, and in Washington?  Don't ask.

In Ohio, they hunt with shotguns. We get to hunt with rifles.

And so it goes.

[boneaddict]

They probably also have fewer cougar, bear and wolves and maybe even fewer Native issues

[Machias]

This thread cracks me up, only guys from this state would be on a bandwagon advocating for less and less hunting time in the field, where most states are increasing hunter time and opportunity in the field.  I think sometime when we think of how f'ed up this state is with the management of it's wildlife we probably should first look in the mirror.  Honestly, if they raise the rates much more I will only hunt out of state.  I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags and TWO turkey tags for $43...total.  I just bought my 18 year old son ONE muzzle loader deer tag here for $45.20.   

\\


Hey, Machias:

I resent that remark.  I'm from this state, 4th generation, and IMHO people who advocate "less" are brain dead from drinking too much WDFW Kool Aid. This crap about permit hunting and raising license fees to compensate for the loss of revenue is the same kind of nutty reasoning we fought tooth and nail back when I was at the old F&H News back in the 1980s.

I used to hear that whine from one of the old agency directors; "we have to settle for less, we're the smallest state with the biggest population" yadda yadda yadda..  Translation: "We're going to do less, deliver mediocre results, and we want to keep hunters out of the woods so they won't see what we're not doing."

The "big" population  stays in the city and swills latte. If they get farther than 10 yards off the sidewalk, pavement or a developed trail they are over their heads.  They run into a guy packing a gun in  the woods, they get the vapors and quickly try to put distance between themselves and us.

Dave you may resent that remark, but go back through this thread and you'll see why I said that.  I think the best managed state for wildlife is Missouri, they also work closely with hunters and increase time in the woods every chance they get.

[huntnnw]

They may have one specie of deer...but I bet all our deer and elk combined is still less than there deer pop. There is no kool aid drinking here..we have far to many hunters here to hunt the habitat we have. Most general areas are pounded!  Leaves very little to be trophy managed and waaaay to many people applying for the limited tags.

[Machias]

Part of the problem is guys either won't or can't see what the real culprit is.  They have this saying someone came up with a long time ago and for whatever reason the hunters of this state swallowed it hook line and sinker.  We're the smallest western state with the most population.  THAT is NOT the reason for the overcrowding and continued loss of hunting time in the field.  It's pitting each user group against each other, all fighting for THEIR time in the woods and being CRAMMED into the same FEW GMUs.  THAT is one of the biggest things that ails this state.

[Bofire]

 :)You are too complicated, I like to hunt out of state cause thats where my wifes not.
Just teasing!
Carl