Has WDFW revealed serious fault with Resource Allocation?

[TopOfTheFoodChain]

Dave,

Thank you for posting. That's a great article. I do not come from a hunting family and had no knowledge of how "it used to be". I won't regurgitate the article but simply say they make a lot of good points I agree with. I have personally stopped elk hunting in this state- due directly to my views of WDFW's crappy management practices.

[Dave Workman]

Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?

Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?

You are getting warm!
As I remarked in the column, the WDFW needs to be accountable for providing bigger and healthier herds. For way too many years, we've all heard the Olympia mantra of "these are the good old days" and "we need to settle for less"

It has been said here by one of our comrades that "Less is the New More" and while some people here seem to accept that, it's nonsense.

If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.

Instead, we seem to be managing for "Less is the new More."  And we're placing far too much emphasis on getting wolf populations up and not enough emphasis on making those elk and deer herds a lot healthier than they are.

The "we shouldn't blame the WDFW" argument doesn't pass the smell test.

[JimmyHoffa]

I'm kind of in agreement with Bobcat  .  But I also don't think Resource Allocation is helping and the WDFW doesn't make it easy for newcomers to join.  One reason I have for saying this is because I have a few indian friends, and even with all the season available and lack of regs--few of them hunt.  Not many total on their rez hunted.  Most were more interested in playing football and going to everyday afterschool football practice and weekend football practice...and offseason weight training for next year's football season to even care about hunting. It seemed like fewer and fewer were interested in things like fishing and hunting each year.  I see the same thing with all kids/young adults.  Those that later do want to pick up the hobby are then having to figure everything out which requires an arguably large investment and get very little time to enjoy it (the RA part). 

[Dhoey07]

You didn't say that it is enirely to blame, but, in my opinion, you definitely insinuated Resource Allocation is the main problem.

I didn't "insinuate" anything. The WDFW press release did that for me by acknowledging that hunters are after more opportunity, therefore, the agency wants to up the number of these special permits for multi-season hunting, which is, as was quickly pointed out, all about MONEY.

The agency strategy is to give this some kind of exclusivity, and I think we ought to throw it open to everyone who wants to go buy an extra tag, the way it was way back when.
They think they'll make more money through permit application fees. I think they'll make a lot more money with OTC sales, and give a lot more people the opportunity to hunt multiple seasons.

I want hunters united. They seem to want to keep hunting user groups split.

That's why i stated that it was my opinion.  I guess i interprete your article differently than you had inteded it to be.  I do agree with you in the idea that the state would make more money with otc sales.

[Bob33]

If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.

Please explain how WDFW has the authority and resources to: (1) take all the national forest lands and improve them, (2) repeal policies that hinder clearcutting, (3) get serious about predator control.

I'm all for it.

[bobcat]

Bobcat if our low success rates are being caused by our low number of animals, and WDFW is not to blame for the decreased number of animals - who is to blame?

Or are you saynig there isn't a problem at all?

Who is to blame? Well, nobody really. Blame the weather, blame the predators, blame people for building and paving over prime wildlife habitat, blame the internet, blame illegal immigrants, blame too many roads and not enough gates, blame the indians, blame ATV's, blame GPS, blame the forest service for not logging enough and/or not letting enough fires burn.

Is that enough? I only blame the WDFW for providing too much opportunity in many cases, while Dave thinks they don't provide enough.

I just don't think the WDFW has that much control over all the factors that affect the populations of deer and elk in this state. If they owned all the land and made all the laws, then yes, they could make a lot more difference. Oh, and here's another one to blame- blame the voters for voting to ban hound hunting and bear baiting. How is that the WDFW's fault?

[CedarPants]

I do see your point Bobcat, and I do agree with some of the things you point out.  My post wasn't meant to be argumentative.

My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW?  If they as an agency have absolutely no control over these factors that have a profound impact on our wildlife, what is it exactly that they do?  If we as sportsmen cannot go to them with our concerns, since these things are beyond their control .... what, if any, accountability do they have to us as a group?  What accountability do they have to any group for that matter if everything is beyond their control?  What is the end-result they are aiming to achieve where they can say "our agency is a success, we have reached our goals"?

[huntnphool]

Make the seasons longer and at times when big game animals are more vulnerable like you want, and we will have even less animals to hunt, and even LOWER success rates.

Not true Bob, the success rate, as far back as they started keeping track, have always been in the 22-25% range, even when the seasons were longer and running later.

[Dave Workman]

If we took all of the land the WDFW owns and all the national forest lands and improve it as HABITAT rather than just a bunch of land lying there, with or without trees and edible vegetation, we could enhance our game AND non-game populations. If we got serious about predator control, and repealed policies that have hindered clearcutting (which improves habitat considerably) and selective logging, and put back the dikes at Skagit to protect waterfowl habitat, it would be taking giant steps in the right direction.

Please explain how WDFW has the authority and resources to: (1) take all the national forest lands and improve them, (2) repeal policies that hinder clearcutting, (3) get serious about predator control.

I'm all for it.

Re-read that. If "we" took all of the land..... What I'm suggesting is that the WDFW could easily partner with the USFS and the DNR to improve public lands. This would be a perfect expenditure of Pittman-Robertson funds, and think of the matching grant money that could come from RMEF, the Mule Deer Foundation, Ruffed Grouse Society, NWTF...and whatever else they could get... now THERE would be a genuine success story.

But it takes some doing, and so far, I haven't seen this kind of outside-the-box thinking since one of our own here, Wacenturion, spearheaded the wild turkey enhancement program. That was a stroke of sheer genius, accomplished on a virtual shoestring budget (compared to what we're  away on wolves).

[huntnphool]

Wacenturion, spearheaded the wild turkey enhancement program. That was a stroke of sheer genius, accomplished on a virtual shoestring budget (compared to what we're  away on wolves).

 And what a wonderful job he did on it too.

[bobcat]

Make the seasons longer and at times when big game animals are more vulnerable like you want, and we will have even less animals to hunt, and even LOWER success rates.

Not true Bob, the success rate, as far back as they started keeping track, have always been in the 22-25% range, even when the seasons were longer and running later.

2010 Success Rate:   Entiat  13%   Swakane 14%   Teanaway  11%

Just a few  examples of some of the best and most popular mule deer units. From the sounds of it, the success rate was much lower this year.

[bobcat]

My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW?

People management.

[Dhoey07]

My question I guess then is what is the overall purpose of the WDFW?

People management.

Amen to that

[huntnphool]

 

2010 Success Rate:   Entiat  13%   Swakane 14%   Teanaway  11%

Just a few  examples of some of the best and most popular mule deer units. From the sounds of it, the success rate was much lower this year

Just like a typical liberal, choosing only the pieces that argue your point. We are talking overall statistics Bob, I'm quite sure we could find a hunt or two that were near 100% too, Swakane sheep, 49DN moose etc.

 There were a couple threads on here during the general hunt where guys were complaining over and over that there were no deer left. I told you and them that the season has been backed up so far that you are only going to see "local" deer during the general season and that the numbers would be there a couple weeks later, after the general closed. Well guess what, I was on a couple late hunts with friends and family members and saw loads of deer, there didn't appear to be a shortage at all.

 The numbers are not what they were in the 80's but they sure as hell have improved greatly over the early 90's harsh winter seasons when we lost our seasons.
 

 

[bobcat]

I looked at mule deer success rates for modern firearm because that is the season you think should be longer, and a couple weeks later, to improve success. Those are actually a few of the better units. You want to see poor success, look at these numbers:

(2010 modern firearm deer)

Naneum         7%
Taneum          5%
Manastash     7%
Umtanum       8%
Little Naches  4%
Nile                4%
Bethel            3%
Rimrock          2%
Cowiche         6%