Goose Prairie Early Archery

[Chase 1]

I know it's late in the game but I need your help! I sent a request for the attached proposal to be considered as part of the three year regs plan. Please read the proposal and consider getting behind it by sending a letter to the dfw and the game Commissioners via the comment line (wildthing@dfw.gov.wa). I need supporters to get behind this request and push to have it addressed as part of the three year package. This request was filed with the game dept. in Sept. and has received little attention. It was most recently published in the WSB (Washington State Bowhunter’s) newsletter as a letter to the editor and I have received a lot of positive feedback. I want to further the conversation with your help. This unit was changed mid-three year package and involved very little public impute when the decision was made to allocate all archery antlerless opportunity to a late season. I realize that the process has minimized the allocation issues due to the Governors moratorium but requests from the public should still be considered by the dfw.

Nearly 1500 archers utilized this unit for the early season and I would like to amplify the voices of those people to lend support to this request. The population numbers support this change and it should be implemented in the three year package. Please take a minute and read the attachment and then drop a letter to the rules making process through the comment line. Public comment will be accepted until Feb. 21st and I am asking that anyone who used to utilize this unit for your general archery season opportunity to please express your feelings to dfw staff and the dfw Commissioners. Thanks for your consideration of this issue.

To: Jerry Nelson Ph.D.
CC: Dave Ware, WDFW Commissioners
From: Ron Chase
RE: Goose Prairie- Nile and Bumping Elk Allocation

Dear Dr. Nelson,
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you at the public meeting in Federal Way and our discussion regarding elk allocation and the rule changes affecting archers in the Goose Prairie Unit. As you requested I have enclosed my research of the issues surrounding the changes along with a list of questions. Thank you for your concern and attention to this issue and I look forward to continued dialogue as we move forward in the three year planning process.

Requested Rule Change for the 2012-2014 Seasons: Reestablish the Goose Prairie Unit as a spike and antlerless season for early archery and reinstate the 53 bull permits lost during the 2009 and 2010 adjustments of the three year management plan. 

Reason: The following information shows an inconsistency in the allocation of elk hunting opportunity to each user group between 2008 – 2011 seasons in Goose Prairie: the Nile (352) and Bumping Units (356). The following information also highlights the affect to archers hunting opportunity following the total closure of early season antlerless elk hunting. 

BULLS - Adjustments were made to the three year management plan in 2010 that reduced the bull permits to each user group in the Goose Prairie Unit. The changes were far more imperatively to archers than to firearm and muzzleloader hunters.
Archers lost 51% of bull permits, from 123 to 60 permits
Firearms lost 29% of bull permits, from 77 to 55 permits
Muzzleloaders lost 23% of bull permits, from 13 to 10 permits.

In 2011 the bull permit numbers were restored to the 2009 levels for firearms and muzzleloader hunters yet they were left significantly lower for archers. Archers were issued 53 less permits, 43% below 2009 levels.

Question #1 – Why have archers lost 53 bull permits while the permits allocated to firearm and
muzzleloader hunters have been restored to 2009 levels?
Bull Permit / Kill Ratios - When you compare the bulls that were killed in Goose Prairie to the permits issued to each user group in the 2008 – 2010 seasons, a vast difference emerges in the harvest success rate between the user groups.

2008 – 2010           Archery                    Firearms                    Muzzleloaders
Bull Permits               310                            222                                38
Bulls Killed                  28                              92                                11
Kill Ratio                       9 %                          41 %                            29 %

Considering the incredibly high success rate of firearm and muzzleloader hunters, it is difficult to understand why archers have been the focus of tag allocation cut backs to meet management goals.

Question #2 – With firearms and muzzleloader hunters having harvested 103 bulls compared to 28 by archers in 2008 - 2010, why have archers been the primary user group targeted for reduction of bull tags allocation and reduction of opportunity?

ANTLERLESS - Adjustments were also made to the three year management plan in 2010 to the early season antlerless hunting in Goose Prairie that closed the unit to archers.
2008-2010 Archers averaged less than 6% harvest success of the antlerless opportunity. 
2008-2010 Rifle hunters averaged 28% harvest success of the antlerless opportunity. 
2008-2010 Muzzleloader hunters averaged 23% harvest success of the antlerless opportunity.   

Early season antlerless opportunity has been greatly reduced for all user groups since the last three year management plan was implemented. Despite the incredibly low success of archers, early antlerless archery opportunity has been completely taken away.   

Question #3 – Why have archery hunters been completely stripped of the early season antlerless hunting opportunity in Goose Prairie while opportunity for other user groups has continued?
Question #4: Do current elk populations indicate that the early archery season in Goose Prairie will be restored to the 2009 levels as part of the new three year management plan?

User Groups – The most accurate information of the numbers of hunters from each of the user groups hunting in Goose Prairie comes from the 2009 harvest report. The following information shows that archers and firearms hunters were nearly equal in the number of hunters utilizing Goose Prairie in 2009. The 2010 harvest report shows the dramatic effects that the rule changes had on archers that had previously utilized Goose Prairie.

2009              Archery                      Firearms                       Muzzleloaders 
Nile                  896                              700                                181
Bumping           560                              640                                235
Total                1356                           1340                                416

2010              Archery                      Firearms                       Muzzleloaders
Nile                  566                               758                                126
Bumping          151                               715                                192
Total                717 (-639)                   1473 (+133)                    318 (-98)

This user information shows that the rule changes in 2010 dramatically diminished the opportunity for archers in Goose Prairie, yet did not affect the firearms hunters.

Question #5: In 2009 archery and firearms hunters were equal users of Goose Prairie for elk hunting, so why have the rule changes primarily been directed at and affected Archer's opportunities?

Conclusion
I realize that big game management is a complex issue with many factors involved in determining user group allocation. Yet it is difficult to overlook the significant loss of opportunity for archers as compared to rifle and muzzleloader hunters in Goose Prairie during the last three years. I have patiently waited for the three year management planning to begin so that this issue could be addressed. The changes that were implemented to the Goose Prairie unit were done mid three year management plan and involved minimal public comment. My efforts in this matter are in attempt to open the dialogue and public impute process in determining the allocation of elk hunting opportunity in Goose Prairie. I would request that this issue continue to be part of the three year planning discussion as we move forward with public comment and finalization. 

On a personal note, my extended family and friends have archery hunted the Bumping unit for the last thirteen years. Since the regulations changed we have not had the opportunity to return to our traditional hunting grounds and therefore not hunted elk. I hope that with your facilitation, our hunting opportunity will be restored as part of the next three year management plan.

Thank you for your time and attention to these issues. I look forward to your response and a continued dialog during the process of completing the new three year management plan.

Ron Chase
chasecoach@yahoo.com
425-931-6784
PO Box 221
Granite Falls, WA 98252

P.S. The information below was retrieved from the WDFW and used to provide the statistics contained in this report.

[D-Rock425]

I don't see an attachment  .  I do believe a lot of archers here have submit letters already.   I think more for season dates then atlerless harvest.

[dreamingbig]

I replied to the one in the elk section.  You could combine the post by editing if you wanted.  I think it is a long shot to get this changed but I have sent five letters on this issue and others (season to 8-21).  Now I am praying.

[Chase 1]

Thanks for taking the time. I have been getting a bunch of emails in favor of this and the archery coalition submitted it as a priority request to the game department. I have had my fingers crossed for two years!

[sakoshooter]

I sent a letter last fall stating more or less what you did. The reply I got said elk numbers were back up so it was a possibility. Sending more emails and letters concerning this unit would definitely put icing on the cake.
I also like the fact that it's mostly wilderness so no orv's.

[Chase 1]

The real icing would be some guys willing to go to the Commission meeting the first weekend of next month in Moses Lake. Requesting Commissioners to ask dfw managers to look at  the requested change can really help the process along. I can't be there so my only recourse is to bombard the department heads with the request.

[KillBilly]

The real icing would be some guys willing to go to the Commission meeting the first weekend of next month in Moses Lake. Requesting Commissioners to ask dfw managers to look at  the requested change can really help the process along. I can't be there so my only recourse is to bombard the department heads with the request.

How about a lot more in depth explanation of your above intent,,,,not sure I understand

[halflife65]

I'm an archer, so definitely support opportunities, but how was the unit/overall harvest affected by opening up the Little Naches? 

[sakoshooter]

When I sent my letter, part of the response I got back stated that Natives were responsible for part of the herd reduction a couple years ago along with cougars and hunting. It also stated that they had no control over Natives but that the cougar pilot program had lapsed.

[Chase 1]

The real icing would be some guys willing to go to the Commission meeting the first weekend of next month in Moses Lake. Requesting Commissioners to ask dfw managers to look at  the requested change can really help the process along. I can't be there so my only recourse is to bombard the department heads with the request.

How about a lot more in depth explanation of your above intent,,,,not sure I understand

The final chance for rules and regs issues to be addressed is through public comment at the Commission meeting. The Commission can alter and add rule issues to the three year plan by asking the department to address the request. The department staff can then alter the rules package before the final vote the following month. Because there has been a lot of requests for this to happen, hitting the Commission with in-person requests could help. I can't make it over there but maybe some of you are already there. You get three minutes to plead your case and with a couple guys you can present a strong position. The post was in response to sakoshooters comment but I forgot to add his quote.

[Tman]

May catch some flack for this, but I think the archers are right were they should stay (maybe even a little high).  Return some of those permits to the smokepole hunters. What a joke.

TAGs:                                                  ALLOCATED %:
Archers: 310                                                     54%
Rifle: 222                                                          38%
Blackpowder: 38                                                06%


- As far as I'm concerned, your not paying for success.  Your paying for opportunity; the possibility of harvesting that big bull.  I understand that archers have to work harder per se than other user groups, but thats a choice you voluntarily made when applying for that "chance".  Look at the drawing success rates for each user group. 

You may have lost a "higher percentage" of tags, but whos to say the archery user group didn't have to many to begin with. 

As far as I'm concerned, the tags should be divided in a way that would better equalize the opportunity for each user group to have the "opportunity" to participate in the hunt.   

[Tman]

May catch some flack for this, but I think the archers are right were they should stay (maybe even a little high).  Return some of those permits to the smokepole hunters. What a joke.

TAGs:                                                  ALLOCATED %:
Archers: 310                                                     54%
Rifle: 222                                                          38%
Blackpowder: 38                                                06%


- As far as I'm concerned, your not paying for success.  Your paying for opportunity; the possibility of harvesting that big bull.  I understand that archers have to work harder per se than other user groups, but thats a choice you voluntarily made when applying for that "chance".  Look at the drawing success rates for each user group. 

You may have lost a "higher percentage" of tags, but whos to say the archery user group didn't have to many to begin with. 

As far as I'm concerned, the tags should be divided in a way that would better equalize the opportunity for each user group to have the "opportunity" to participate in the hunt.   

To better clarify what I think would be the appropriate allocation for each hunter group...'

Total TAGS: 570

2010
Total Hunters: 71418
Rifle: 45122 (63.1%)
Muzzle: 9714 (13.6%)
Archery:16582 (23.2%)

Proper tag allocation:
Rifle: 359
Muzzle:76
Archery:132

Total tag numbers may have to be adjusted to equalize harvest to current management objectives. 

You see, I'm not advocating any individual user group here, rather hunters as a whole.  We need to quit trying to fend for ourselves and start working as a group...

[Sawbuck]

Well said Tman

[dreamingbig]

You see, I'm not advocating any individual user group here, rather hunters as a whole.  We need to quit trying to fend for ourselves and start working as a group...

Sorry, but with what they did to the archery hunters in GMU 356 we can't afford to take that approach.  They only slashed our opportunity after the modern firearm user group started complaining about the amount of bulls taken (for all early archery hunts) and when they were facing a slight decline in population in 356, they decided to cut archery harvest the most (no anterless and slashed bull permits by a higher percentage than the other groups)!

[Tman]

Dreaminbig....What makes you think your user group is entitled to more opportunity than the others?   According to the numbers above, archers still have over double their share.

Just wonderin.....