Lack of nice bulls in Quality hunt areas

[RadSav]

Wholly Crap what a mess.

Managing a "Quality Bull" unit and a general hunting unit are quite different things.  While it is important to set point restriction standards in a general hunting area it is not required within a limited access/tag area.  Except in very unique situations point restrictions are imposed to limit game harvests while allowing everyone a chance.  Quality Bull units limit game harvest by limiting how many have a chance.  The "Quality Bull" label is more closely related to the hunting experience and the number of bulls within that unit than the size and weight of those bulls within the unit.

I agree that sometimes the WDFW head counts are fictitious.  And tags available seem extreme.  But, without us hunters paying for the US Geological Survey guys to do this for the state - it is what it is.  The Toutle unit is a Huge Unit with really no major population or agriculture and a tremendous number of animals.  The Wenaha units in comparison are small and the number of animals are far fewer than the Toutle.  The reason for the larger bulls in the Wenaha is not the number of issued tags and definitely not because of spike harvest restrictions.  Last I checked both Wenaha East and West were "Any Bull".

I think a lot of the guys posting on here have been watching too much TV.  Though Washington does get the occasional "Big Bull" we are not a big bull state.  Furthermore the Rocky Mountain Bulls of the Wenaha are quite a bit different than the Cascade Roosevelt bulls of the Toutle and Margaret.  With the different vegetation and thickness of cover even if the genes were the same it would still be oranges to tangerines. 

The second addition of the WA Big Game Records was printed, I think, in 2005.  As of that date we only had one typical bull listed above 400 BC.  And, in all user groups combined we only had 16 typical Cascade Rosie and 52 typical Rockies over 350.  Compare that to Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona.  To them I guess not only should quality bull / toutle be an oxymoron, but so should Washington Quality Bull in general.

Finally, I would love to see everyone stay in their trucks and cruise the roads for spikes.  Aaah, just imagine!  I would have all the woods to myself.  I'd never have to wonder if the answer I got from my bugle was a bull or another hunter.  I'd never have a stalk ruined by another hunter.  I could see huge numbers of big Washington bulls per day.  And, I could tell everyone how much better I am than they are.  So keep road hunting and shooting spikes - I'd appreciate it very much.

[trophyhunt]

Also comparing Washington to "other" states, like Arizona is ridiculous,
 Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.

Would it be a bad thing if Tribes Managed Game? What if they Managed it for Trophy hunts that Non-Tribal could participate? Would that be so bad? The more I look at it I have more values in line with them than I do with Olympia. I know it's a leap but when I look at the big picture, they are not the problem.

Yes it would be a very bad thing to have tribes manage OUR game.  I wonder just how much they would charge ''Whitey'' to hunt on there land.  I totally dissagree with you on this one, I don't think it would go over very well at all.

[Wenatcheejay]

Also comparing Washington to "other" states, like Arizona is ridiculous,
 Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.

Would it be a bad thing if Tribes Managed Game? What if they Managed it for Trophy hunts that Non-Tribal could participate? Would that be so bad? The more I look at it I have more values in line with them than I do with Olympia. I know it's a leap but when I look at the big picture, they are not the problem.

Yes it would be a very bad thing to have tribes manage OUR game.  I wonder just how much they would charge ''Whitey'' to hunt on there land.  I totally dissagree with you on this one, I don't think it would go over very well at all.

Agreed. So, pushing for our Agency to better manage State Owned Game is a better solution? (I'd agree, that was always my option A.)
I agree, desire to increase antler size is a reasonable goal. As others have said, GMU 556, really that whole area is not really "Trophy habitat Area." So, if the solution is to push for horn size that will not be, the result will be lot of camping with guns. Then, special interests will cull the herd. I simply don't want to see this cycle continue much less increased. I like the 3pt on the Westside. 

[PlateauNDN]

I know this will make people mad but I would like the entire state to go draw only with a few units at 5 point or better with no spikes taken.

Boy that would make the tribes very happy, way less non tribal guys in the woods to witness there slaughters.  My 2cents, Bad Idea.

[/b]

Really?!  You really want to take this thread off course with comments like this?  Why not keep this thread on the main subject and keep stuff like this out of it.  This IS a really good thread so please don't take it off course with uncalled for comments like this.

As I've stated before our State has potential and if it were to be run in a better fashion then it could produce some very good, quality bulls.  I'm not saying the Tribes should do it or anyone in particular, I'm just saying if someone would invest the time and resources this State could.

As for the Tribe managing its own lands more efficiently it's also possible.  With the resources, land base, financing, enforcement and knowledge of how to accomplish this then yes, the Yakamas could compete on a National level with other Tribes for quality bulls.  If the Tribe was like many others and allowed for special permit hunting within its borders for quality bulls then why not?  More quality hunts for hunters and added revenue for the Tribe to improve wildlife habitat and management.

I don't know why it's not being explored now but the future is fast approaching and I would sure love to be here when/if this happens.

[JimmyHoffa]

I really don't have a problem with the size of the animals in this state....sometimes I wish they were smaller when packing out the pieces.  Like stated above, the tag notes (pg 43)...Hunters can expect lower than average hunter densities, greater potential for success, or good timing during these hunts.  Nothing about minimum BC/PY scores.  From the annual harvest data (kill stats), the success rate for elk seems to hover around 9% anyways (legal).  I don't agree with having to lower overall success for everyone so that a small group can get slightly bigger animals.

[RadSav]

I really don't have a problem with the size of the animals in this state....sometimes I wish they were smaller when packing out the pieces.  Like stated above, the tag notes (pg 43)...Hunters can expect lower than average hunter densities, greater potential for success, or good timing during these hunts.  Nothing about minimum BC/PY scores.  From the annual harvest data (kill stats), the success rate for elk seems to hover around 9% anyways (legal).  I don't agree with having to lower overall success for everyone so that a small group can get slightly bigger animals.

I have a good number of friends in Arizona.  Every single one is jealous of our hunting in Washington.  Sure they kill big bulls when they get a tag.  Most, however, would prefer to hunt elk each year regardless of trophy status and then pay the big bucks if they chose to go after a Big Boy somewhere else.

Grass is always greener - Isn't it?

[trophyhunt]

[


As for the Tribe managing its own lands more efficiently it's also possible.  With the resources, land base, financing, enforcement and knowledge of how to accomplish this then yes, the Yakamas could compete on a National level with other Tribes for quality bulls.  If the Tribe was like many others and allowed for special permit hunting within its borders for quality bulls then why not?  More quality hunts for hunters and added revenue for the Tribe to improve wildlife habitat and management.

I don't know why it's not being explored now but the future is fast approaching and I would sure love to be here when/if this happens.
[/quote]If the Yakima's were smart then they should manage their rez and start producing large elk for sale, then maby they could stop poaching on our land.