Another reason not to go elk hunting.

[Glockster]

Thanks, forgot the Archers are more dedicated thing.   

The more you reduce opportunity in terms of time and space ; the more bad behaviour develops.  Look at any hunt.  Look at any fishery in this state and you will see the reality of packing more rats into a smaller cage....and yet we have lost over 40% of our hunters over the past 20yrs but the woods are more crowded and sportsmanship is a lost concept.   The more people are temped to cut corners ; the more people who are bad to begin with get even worse.  So ya, make it permit only and see what happens.

I remember the 'pure' archers wanted all the 'non dedicated" guys out of 'their' sport back in the 80's so they lobbied for and helped win the Choose your Weapon law. It played right into the anti hunters' strategy of divide and conquer.  Let's compare how much good that elitist exclusionary tactic worked out for the "more dedicated" hunters of this state:

Back in '86 I could archery hunt every single 300 unit for both deer and elk.  Any elk and any deer was legal. Early season was Sept 1-30; late season was late Nov - Dec 31st.

Today I can only hunt archery hunt deer in 11 of the 300 units Sept 1-16 and only 3pt bucks are legal.  For elk it's worse; i can only hunt Sept 6-18 only  (5) 300 units are open and only spike bulls legal...and only true spike for 3 of those units.  Late elk is now Nov 23 to Dec 5th 4 300 units spike or cow. For late season; only (4) 300 units are open for deer from Nov 24 - Dec 8th and only 3pts are legal. 

You think archery hunting is better today than in '86??

[demontang]

Man I was up there and never ran in to anything but a few guys that tried to run my expedition off the road so they didnt have to stop. I can tell you this year seems like a zoo up there to past years, Im woundering if the paper advertising that it was going to be good in the yak valley had more people up there . I did notice not many guys seem to get out of there rigs and walk around.

[spookgus]

There always has been and always will be a$$holes. My uncle had his elk stolen on the Colokum at gun point in the 60s by two people that offered to help him retrieve it. There probably isn't a higher percentage of jackwagons but it seems that way with less access, and a one week season which puts every Modern elk hunter in the woods at the same time.

[pianoman9701]

"I remember the 'pure' archers wanted all the 'non dedicated" guys out of 'their' sport back in the 80's so they lobbied for and helped win the Choose your Weapon law. It played right into the anti hunters' strategy of divide and conquer.  Let's compare how much good that elitist exclusionary tactic worked out for the "more dedicated" hunters of this state:"

Glock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted. I'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact. My point wasn't that archers are any better than anyone else. Archery is a sport that you need to practice at more to be successful at. That's a fact. Unlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters. Are there unethical and bad hunters in archery? Sure there are. But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.

You sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. Best of luck to you in your hunting this fall, Glock. I hope you get the elk of your dreams.

[724wd]

like spookgus said, there have always been issues with a-holes in hunting.  my dad tells a story about an elk that was taken from he and my grandpa in the late 50's out of walla walla. grandpa shot the elk, and in the time it took them to get to the carcass, two fellas were butchering it and claimed they had shot it.  grandpa was smart and told them they could have it, especially after he saw what they'd done to it with an axe while 'butchering' it!   

[Recurve-Elk]

My dad and I pick up beer cans whenever we can in the field.  We figure heck, every can/piece of trash we pick up and properly dispose of is a karma point.  If we get enough karma points, then we will harvest an elk.  Behold, this year I harvested one!    Anyway, I agree.  People need to just relax have a good time, and take care of their garbage.  Simple as that.  But we all know that is easier said than done...  It's not like this is just hunters, this is just human nature.  We will never eliminate fights, or theft, and people will always litter.... It sucks, but the truth is.  A lot of people suck.   

Cheers!   

[Recurve-Elk]

That's why I hunt with a bow. I dont see amy of the above.

Happens during archery seasons too.  Somebody tried to tag my dads bull once.  We have heard of fights, and there is definitely a lot of fresh trash out there.

[Dave Workman]

Glock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted.

Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good  anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional.

I'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact.

Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples.  Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. 

Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead.

 

Unlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters.

That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different.  I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me.

But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.

Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy.  Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?

You sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .

Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience."
What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.

But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.


As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.

[pianoman9701]

Dave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised.

[pianoman9701]

I'm done with this thread. As I said, I don't care how you hunt as long as your ethics are intact. I guess I would add as well as following the rules. Have a nice argument you guys.

[JimmyHoffa]

The more you reduce opportunity in terms of time and space ; the more bad behaviour develops.  Look at any hunt.  Look at any fishery in this state and you will see the reality of packing more rats into a smaller cage....and yet we have lost over 40% of our hunters over the past 20yrs but the woods are more crowded and sportsmanship is a lost concept.   The more people are temped to cut corners ; the more people who are bad to begin with get even worse. 

I agree with this a whole lot.  I think one of the main reasons it isn't seen as much in archery is the longer/split seasons.  Sure, they only have about 1/4 the hunters and even some units that aren't available, but as it is now they can still spread out.  They lost a few hunting days this past year, but what would archery be like if it was only a 1 week season?  Think how many of the modern firearm incidents would go down if they had 3 or 4 more times as many days.

[colockumelk]

Dave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised.

 

Now its my turn to take his comments out of context.

Glock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted.

Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good  anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional. So because I'm not over 50 years old I must be delusional and a fool right.  How could I possibly know what good managment is    My opinions obviously don't matter do they.  Unless it goes along with what you say. 

I'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact.

Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples.  Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. 

Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead.
Yes lets not talk about ethics God forbid people get a lesson on ethics.  "One man's ethics are another man's elitism" Sounds about as elitist as it gets.  What would you like to talk about Responsibility about?  There is a reason I refuse to allow anyone in my family to hunt modern elk.  Its not because I'm an elitist its just not safe IMHO.  I also don't want to subject them to the lack of ethics I see during that time.  Not saying everyone is unethical or irresponsible but there's enough of it that i don't want to expose my son to that.

 

Unlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters.

That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different.  I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me.

This is kind of naive don't you think?  I've hunted with a rifle, then switched to muzzle loader, and now I hunt with a bow.  And unless you have hunted with a bow how are you gonna say whether or not it takes more skill and effort to be successfull.  Well I've done all three so let me say this.  In order to be LETHAL with a bow I must practise and tune my bow for at least 2 months.  To do the same with a rifle it takes me maybe a day.  But its usually still on from last year.  And you can't even compare the skill level it takes and the amount of effort it takes to get within lethal bow range compared to lethal rifle range. 

But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.

Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy.  Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?

You know exactly what he meant.  Rifle hunting IS EASIER!!! Nothing wrong with that and thats not what he was saying.  It is a FACT that for the most part the since archery is far more time consuming than modern to be successfull, the people who are strapped for time or are lazy are not going to pick the harder method.  They WILL pick the easier one.  Again nothing wrong with that.  If you want to do well than this is good decision making IMHO.  Nothing elitist about it.  Its the truth. 

You sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .

Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience."
What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.

But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.

I agree 100% with what you said above.  I don't disagree at all.  Very well said DAVE.  I'm not pissed its just you took Pianoman's words out of context and to me you sounded very elitist.     Maybe it came off different than you intended. 


As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.

[Dave Workman]

Dave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised.

No, I didn't, I answered your remarks point by point. And that brings us around to this:

Have a nice argument you guys.

I rest my case. Resource Allocation pitts one group against the other, so we are prone to having such arguments. That's no reason to take your ball and go home. You made some statements, I challenged them.

Whether you agree or not, your opportunities as an archer have been gradually eroded so what the bowhunters originally thought they would get when RA was first adopted a generation ago has become a shadow of its former self. Same with muzzleloaders.
You got screwed, but it's not the modern guys or the black powder guys who did it.

[colockumelk]

QUOTE DAVE WORKMANSome hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience."
What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.QUOTE DAVE WORKMAN

DAVE I want to touch on what you said above.  I don't think that it could have been said any better than this.  A copy of this message should be emailed and/or mailed to every single hunter in Washington State.  We as sportsman are to blame for the loss of opportunity.  Why???  BECAUSE WE DO NOTHING!!!  Like you mentioned above people have their head up their rectum.  They are afraid or too lazy to say anything or question the WDFW.  The biggest excuse is "well lets just be thankfull for what we have."  BS.  This is why they keep chipping away at our seasons and opportunity.  I think people settle too much.  They pay all this money and don't expect anything in return except for what you said.  Well at least I saw one.  What a successfull year.  At the end of my article I said "When people go year after year without getting anything they take up golf."  Which is EXACTLY what happens.  People worry about rocking the boat because they have this "well it can't get any worse" attitude but it IS ALWAYS going to get worse.  History has shown us that it IS GOING to get worse.  I used to fall into that.  When spike only came around I thought well we have to sacrifice so it can get better again.  Well guess what it still SUCKS.  And what has spike only given us???  Nothing.  Its given us elk to look at during the winter.  So the wildlife viewing crowd has gained from it.  The WDFW gets more money from special permit money.  The tribal hunters get bigger bulls to hunt and the poachers have bigger bulls to hunt.  The bull to cow ratio is the same if not worse in the Colockum.  So again what has hunters gained from our sacrifice???  NOTHING PEOPLE!!!! 

Sorry for the rant DAVE.  You summed it up better than me.  People need to stop being complacint they should expect more from the WDFW and should expect more from their hunting experience. 

[Dave Workman]

Dave, you took all of my comments out of context and I suspect you know it. I'm surprised.

 

Now its my turn to take his comments out of context.

Glock, I wasn't here then and don't know about what transpired before that rule was enacted.

Therein lies the problem with a lot of people on this forum. Those of us who are from around here know how much management has deteriorated and how much opportunity has been eroded over the years, and we're tired of it...and we are trying to educate you newcomers that what many of you think is good  anagement now, compared to where you came from, is delusional. So because I'm not over 50 years old I must be delusional and a fool right.  How could I possibly know what good managment is    My opinions obviously don't matter do they.  Unless it goes along with what you say. 

Not being over 50 is your good fortune. You will catch up. We weren't talking about your age, but the experience of some people with Washington management and hunting opportunity. It is nowhere near as good as it was 25 years ago. It's rather shabby, actually. That doesn't make you a fool. Your opinions matter as much as anyone else's here. It's just that some of us have been here to watch this deterioration for decades and understand that it wasn't necessary. Indeed, some of it is kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm not an elitist and I support any way that you hunt as long as your ethics are intact.

Don't start talkking about "ethics." One man's "ethics" are another man's elitism. I've had people actually challenge me for carrying a rifle with a round in the chamber (apparently they saw on Saturday television somewhere that the star of some show waited until he saw a big bull roaming around..as found buy a guide on a private ranch...is the ethical way to hunt) out in the field. Horse apples.  Elitists can go choke on the word "ethics" because it's a verbal weapon they use on others who don't share their particular principles. 

Let's talk about RESPONSIBILITY instead.
Yes lets not talk about ethics God forbid people get a lesson on ethics.  "One man's ethics are another man's elitism" Sounds about as elitist as it gets.  What would you like to talk about Responsibility about?  There is a reason I refuse to allow anyone in my family to hunt modern elk.  Its not because I'm an elitist its just not safe IMHO.  I also don't want to subject them to the lack of ethics I see during that time.  Not saying everyone is unethical or irresponsible but there's enough of it that i don't want to expose my son to that.

I've been hunting elk with a rifle or muzzleloader for many years. I don't know that it's any more or less safe out there. You evidently see a lack of ethics. I contend that's rather subjective. What are we talking about. Game theft? Losing wounded game? Taking unsafe shots? claiming the high ground when there isn't any? Properly observing that one person's ethics are another person's elitism may sting a bit, but it is true.

 

Unlike modern or even ML, You can't just pick up your bow on opening day and kill an elk. As a result, archery has a higher percentage of dedicated hunters.

That's elitist rhetoric. Modern rifle, blackpowder and handgun hunters (I've done all three) are just as devoted to their choice, but they shouldn't have to be LIMITED to that choice because it destroys their opportunity to try something different.  I don't hunt with a bow and never have because it simply doesn't interest me. Shooters enjoy the feel of a good rifle, the time spent at the loading bench, the ability to place a precision shot at distance (which is not being a lazy slob, but being a careful marksman). I've killed deer with rifles and handguns. That interests me.

This is kind of naive don't you think?  I've hunted with a rifle, then switched to muzzle loader, and now I hunt with a bow.  And unless you have hunted with a bow how are you gonna say whether or not it takes more skill and effort to be successfull.  Well I've done all three so let me say this.  In order to be LETHAL with a bow I must practise and tune my bow for at least 2 months.  To do the same with a rifle it takes me maybe a day.  But its usually still on from last year.  And you can't even compare the skill level it takes and the amount of effort it takes to get within lethal bow range compared to lethal rifle range. 

Unless you have driven a Mercedes, you haven't driven an automobile. That it? You seem to presume I've never shot a bow or considered hunting with one. I've shot a fair number of bows. Compounds, recurves and even a couple of long bows. Bowhunting, as I said, doesn't interest me. I don't own an AR-15 because the platform doesn't interest me, either. Some people would call me a "Fudd" but I don't give a rat's ass if they own a house full of ARs or bows. More power to them. And you, too. You can have my share of the available bows.

But, the undedicated and slouches tend more to stick to modern because they're lazy and it's easier. And, I'm also not saying modern hunters are lazy. I'm saying that if you ARE lazy, you're probably not going to pick archery as your tag of choice. It doesn't make us better or more worthy or make me elitist for saying so. It's just a fact of the sport.

Self-contradictory. Rifle hunters choose modern because they're lazy and it's easier, but you're not saying modern hunters are lazy.  Well, which is it? You voted for it before you voted against it?

You know exactly what he meant.  Rifle hunting IS EASIER!!! Nothing wrong with that and thats not what he was saying.  It is a FACT that for the most part the since archery is far more time consuming than modern to be successfull, the people who are strapped for time or are lazy are not going to pick the harder method.  They WILL pick the easier one.  Again nothing wrong with that.  If you want to do well than this is good decision making IMHO.  Nothing elitist about it.  Its the truth. 

Rifle hunting may seem easier to slobs; the same type of person who leaves an elk and or deer running around with an arrow in its rump or gut. I've actually run across people who were road hunting with bows. Don't try to sell me on the greater devotion to the sport on the part of the bowhunter, because that dog just doesn't hunt. Each group, as he noted, has its boneheads.

You sound like you're ready to pick a fight with other hunters. I suggest that if you're really concerned for our dwindling elk opportunities that you pick anti-hunters to fight with instead. There are plenty of them out there. It's a target-rich environment. .

Some hunters deserve to have a fight poked at them, because they have gone along to get along for way too long. They walk around with their heads either in the clouds or up their rectums, thinking what they have now is just fine because it cuts down on competition and allows them a more "wilderness experience."
What about success? What about meat in the cooler? What about the next generation of hunters who deserve a lot more than being told by some twerp in Olympia or on television that disappointment is fine so long as they get to see an elk or deer prancing over the far ridge. People do not pay for disappointment. People will not pay to take their kids along when they know the odds of success are dismal; they'll see the kids stay home and play video games where at least they get to win once in a while.

But this whole argument takes us back to what I've said for years. Resource Allocation, which limits us to a weapon choice, perpetuates divisiveness among hunters, and that's deliberate. While we fight amongst ourselves, the department can do whatever it damn well pleases, whether it means cutting back seasons and opportunities; putting emphasis on wolves and "watchable" wildlife instead of putting fish in the lakes and rivers and expanding herd populations to boost success rates among the people who pay the bills.

I agree 100% with what you said above.  I don't disagree at all.  Very well said DAVE.  I'm not pissed its just you took Pianoman's words out of context and to me you sounded very elitist.     Maybe it came off different than you intended. 

I'm not an elitist, I'm a realist. And I don't believe I took his words out of context at all.


As for someone taking an elk from me that I shot.... Good luck with that.