We as hunters wanted the $40 dollar increase on the 2nd deer tags. Read

[Curly]

Definitely will be interesting to see how many people are willing to pay $66 for doe.

I don't know about the island deer, but the GMU I live in (666) has some 2nd doe permits and I just don't see the need for them here.

For me, it comes down to a trust issue.  I don't believe anything that Dave Ware says anymore, so I am really skeptical of any reasoning that they come up with for just about any issue.

[buckman202]

I'd actually like for them to do away with most of the 2nd tag hunts they're offering. I don't believe we have the deer numbers to justify it. If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine. But most of the permits I see are in areas which don't seem to have an excess of deer. As for the new price, I complained about it at first, but after mulling it over for a while, I think it's fair. For those wanting a second chance to hunt deer in a given year, it's a great opportunity to get out in the woods again. However, having said that, I will not be applying for it next year, but only because I'm on a real tight budget right now, with two kids and only one income. I could see myself putting my kids in for it in a few more years when they're old enough to hunt, simply to give them more time in the woods.

sorry I totally disagree with the first part of that statement. I feel as though the state should make second deer tags more available, especially in certain areas. With the exception of Mule deer in certain areas deer populations within the state are doing good almost too good. By thinning out some of the white tails especially where I live will not only help hunters,farmers, current white tail populations, but also help the mulies have more a fighting chance rather then just be pushed into the harshest of areas.  just my 

[bobcat]

sorry I totally disagree with the first part of that statement. I feel as though the state should make second deer tags more available, especially in certain areas.

That's ok, I'm not used to people agreeing with me anyway. You do need to read all of what I said, such as this part:
 

If the deer population in a particular area truly is overpopulated, then fine.

 
I'm thinking more of the areas that I'm most familiar with, which would be blacktail deer. I can see where the 2nd tags may be needed on the islands, and many of the GMU's which are mostly farmland/private property. In that case I don't have a problem with them.
 
 
 

[buckman202]

Yea I feel like maybe were just living in to different worlds, I drew a modern doe tag this year and also am a master hunter  so if I do not fill my general tag I can take a doe in December. I have landowners calling me asking if I want to come out to their place and shoot a doe. Offering me a 6 pack if I do. Granted i'm not trying to boast but it just seems to me the 3 GMU's in which I hunt in have more than enough deer to not only withstand the current special permits but also would be great if they increased them as well.  I am no wildlife biologist so I might be off with that comment but when I go on a 5mile drive and see 47 white tails just from the road that maybe game management needs to be adjusted a little bit.

[bobcat]

In the case of excess whitetails on private farmland, I think the 2nd tags are a great idea. Most people don't want to use their primary tag on a doe, so this is what they needed to do in order to get people to take some of those does that need thinned out. I liked seeing that the youth price for the 2nd tag is only $22. I can see myself taking my daughters on doe hunts in a few more years when they're a little older, if the price stays at $22 for kids.
 
What I didn't like seeing was the 2nd tag hunts they added last year in Southwest Washington. They had permits in a lot of units, which I really do not believe have an overabundance of deer. But heck, what do I know, maybe the WDFW really did base all of the doe permit numbers on scientific fact, and not just with the idea that the more permits they offer in more areas, the more people will apply, and the more revenue they will bring in. (nah, it couldn't have been that)

[C-Money]

As more and more hunters pull out from purchasing licences, the price will only increase, as well as illegally taking of game.

[luvmystang67]

It doesn't seem like a high cost compared to fuel but it certainly DOESN'T HELP!  Just cause something is expensive, it doesn't justify associated things being expensive.  Its a lose lose.  I can tell you that I will not be re-applying for a second deer permit ($6.50 + $66 (if drawn) + dealer fees) to harvest a doe in the places that desperately need it.  I have hunted the islands, they should let resident hunters out there shoot 4.  Not necessary elsewhere in the state necessarily, but they're certainly driving me out of the picture.  Not to mention those deer are TINY. 

Love how $40 doesn't seem that bad to people.  I spent some time in North Carolina.  $40 was the "Sportsman" tag.  Included fishing and hunting for all wildlife in the state, fresh and salt water.  6 Deer, 2 Bear, 2 Turkey were covered in that $40.  We pay over $80 after application fees and the hassle of applying to shoot 1 doe in a certain area.  Bull.

[kirkl]

i can shoot a doe as a non resident in montana for not much more than that. those 2nd, 3rd, 4th doe tags are dirt cheap for residents of montana and their over the counter.
and they want 66 bucks here for residents.

[FC]

I do believe that there does need to be a second deer permit/hunt. I have spent time in many of these areas and there truely is a big problem with an increasing deer population. Unfortunately another issue is that in many of these areas the landowners do not allow hunting, but they are the same landowners that complain about the deer #'s.

This issue is pretty stupid, if the land owners are unwilling to allow a hunt than they should suck it up and deal with it. I can't believe that anyone would suggest sterilization or trapping when there are so many willing to hunt them. If they added their properties to a list with wdfw they could easily have youth hunts organized or firearm restricted type hunts with specific rules in place to protect equipment and livestock if they were concerned with centerfire rifles being used on their property.

[buckman202]

But then the WDFW would actually have to get the hunters the list in a timely manner... Started emailing in agust still waiting to hear from em....Some of us like to have plans set BEFORE season starts.

[huntinguy]

I do believe that there does need to be a second deer permit/hunt. I have spent time in many of these areas and there truely is a big problem with an increasing deer population. Unfortunately another issue is that in many of these areas the landowners do not allow hunting, but they are the same landowners that complain about the deer #'s.

This issue is pretty stupid, if the land owners are unwilling to allow a hunt than they should suck it up and deal with it. I can't believe that anyone would suggest sterilization or trapping when there are so many willing to hunt them. If they added their properties to a list with wdfw they could easily have youth hunts organized or firearm restricted type hunts with specific rules in place to protect equipment and livestock if they were concerned with centerfire rifles being used on their property.

I think they are starting to try and move that way with the master hunter program.

I do agree though, if a landowner complains to the game department they should be given two options: deal with it or allow some form of hunting, be it the landowner or the game department has a list of hunters to draw from or allow open hunting.

I respect the landowners rights to their land and understand their point of view. Not one of us would like someone messing around in our yards. Even on a farm... one person mistakes a cow for a elk, or drives across a field that has irrigation ditches in it, leaves a gate open or closes an open one, leaves a mess for the landowner to clean up.... All of these things I have seen. I understand.

We keep being told that the game animals belong to EVERYONE in the state, the land does not....

As hunters we need to become more active in politics, environmental concerns and community outreach. It is the only way that I can see we will keep our sport alive.

[finnman]

My party of 3 hunters drew 2nd deer tags for the Harrington unit. We applied for them due to not hunting Montana this year. In MT as a non-resident you pay $75 for a doe tag over the counter in many central and eastern units. Why would I stay and hunt here, If I draw a tag, when you can go to MT and buy a couple or more tags over the counter and actually have a place to hunt? This state does not have the answers for the hard questions us hunters are asking!
I personally love my venison, but I will not be applying for any more 2nd deer tags at that price! And If I draw out of state next year I will not hunt WA at all!
Again the only reason they are still around is simply because they are the goberment! If they were a private company they would have been long gone!!!!

[Bob33]

"the omission of the price...was a mistake...".  "..the increase was recommended by hunters..."

I suspect the average hunter's perception of WDFW these days parallels the public's view of Congress.

[KopperBuck]

Really? I find it really hard to believe that WE asked WDFW to raise the price of a 2nd deer tag. I'd like to see the poll results, but then again they probably would be skewed anyways.

[bobcat]

I think I said this once before, but this will now be a great tag for kids, as the youth price is only $22. For this reason I am actually liking the big price increase, because it should make the tag a much easier draw, and in a few more years I will be putting my kids in for this one.