Post by: Dman on July 23, 2007, 11:54:19 AM
-Or change it?
Post by: ICEMAN on July 23, 2007, 12:00:28 PM
What I believe you would see happen is 80 percent less people applying for permits. Dedicated serious hunters would be the only group applying.
Raising money by raffling off the game of this state has always seemed a bit wrong to me.
Post by: Dman on July 23, 2007, 12:00:52 PM
My statement was;
I would propose the following system; Entire State goes to draw only for alternating two year intervals for buck deer, with doe hunts every year. you could apply as a group, or individual. The first year, 50% of licensed tag holder's would be drawn, the other 50% the following year would be guarenteed a tag. You could then count on being to hunt a quality hunt and know when it would happen. Quota's would be instituted for max hunter's per unit (multiple hunt choices).
Post by: bobcat on July 23, 2007, 12:14:56 PM
I like having general seasons too, for the flexibility they provide, but I think there are just too many people now, and not enough deer and elk, to allow the unlimited hunting that we have now.
Post by: Bobm on July 23, 2007, 12:38:55 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 23, 2007, 12:48:28 PM
Post by: Dman on July 23, 2007, 12:57:29 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 23, 2007, 01:23:29 PM
Post by: Curly on July 23, 2007, 01:24:03 PM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on July 23, 2007, 02:26:09 PM
Post by: Machias on July 23, 2007, 02:47:02 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on July 23, 2007, 02:57:37 PM
That said the current system is supposed to increase your draw odds, but I would like to see them publish the stats for each unit. i.e. how many points it took each applicant to draw the permit. This seems reasonable and might help to convince me that the draw is being done correctly.
Post by: jackelope on July 23, 2007, 03:05:12 PM
Post by: bobcat on July 23, 2007, 03:06:33 PM
Post by: Dman on July 23, 2007, 03:40:01 PM
Post by: billythekidrock on July 23, 2007, 04:42:18 PM
I have already mentioned some of the things I would like to see on the draw hunts.
Keep points
Go back to the "if you apply your penalized 3 days)
Drop hunt choices back to one (or maybe two)
Pre pay on the big 3
Post by: wannahunt on July 23, 2007, 05:11:17 PM
Post by: GOcougsHunter on July 23, 2007, 07:10:17 PM
Post by: Dman on July 24, 2007, 11:18:57 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 24, 2007, 11:21:01 AM
Post by: GoldTip on July 24, 2007, 12:27:55 PM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on July 24, 2007, 12:29:57 PM
Post by: boneaddict on July 24, 2007, 02:00:42 PM
Post by: Kent Hunter on July 29, 2007, 10:34:33 PM
Post by: littletoes on August 04, 2007, 08:37:08 AM
Sure you guys out number us, three to one, maybe more? Doesn't that mean that our state should do a "Split" like perhaps New York State has done??? All the voting power is in the cities, so to keep our strength or voting power equal, we need to "split" the voting capacity so that we have an equal VOICE.
If you can come up with a good reason why not...Somebody tell me why a city full of people, most raised with one idea in thier heads, should have voting power over those of us living over here?
Sorry to bring this up, but most over by the coast are Liberals, most over here are not. We is country lovin' gun toters, and "WE" should have the voting power over what happens over HERE.
Sure, this is going to offend some folks, but shouldn't YOU have voting power over what happens in YOUR backyard, as WE should have voting power over what happens in OURS???
Common sense?
Post by: Curly on August 04, 2007, 09:15:53 AM
Post by: actionshooter on August 04, 2007, 09:04:51 PM
I agree with this, I think this is how we lost hounds and baiting
If you can come up with a good reason why not...Somebody tell me why a city full of people, most raised with one idea in thier heads, should have voting power over those of us living over here?
Post by: Opportunist on August 05, 2007, 11:09:29 AM
These biggame animals reside in mainly Federal lands which are owned by all citizens. Wildlife are publicly owned. I buy my eastside tag even though I live westside and have elk in my backyard, but I prefer to hunt big bulls on the eastside, my choice. Everyone has the same odds of drawing. There is already a penalty on the eastside its called spike only if you don't draw!
Let's not split our ranks any further!
I like Oregon's point system the best. It would be an easy transition for WDFW to do. 75% of the tags go to those with most points then 25% are drawn random luck. I've seen Nevada's spread sheet for points ( identical to washingtons weighted point system), weighted points don't do you alot of good if you have bad luck. My hunting partner has 8 deer points in Nevada and the tags were drawn this year in the unit he applies for by hunters with fewer points. Sound familiar to Washington? I know of a kid who drew Cleman Mt. sheep last year with 2 points. Great for the kid but unfair for the hunters with max points.
Post by: littletoes on August 05, 2007, 11:32:55 AM
I get discriminated in all of the other states I hunt as a non-resident. I'll be damned if I'll get discriminated in my OWN state.
So, you don't think "We" over here don't get discriminated by what happens on any kind of vote because of the huge population over there??? King Co. alone outnumbers our entire side of the State. We don't even have a voice, and sad to say, that is with ALL things, not just game animals. Hell, the folks we have to choose from as Officials mostly live over there too. Thats got to help our position, sure.
As said above, how many negative votes for hounds/bears came from over there as opposed from here, just as one example. Do you realy think its going to get better? Just listen to the voice's from this side....
Post by: Opportunist on August 05, 2007, 12:20:35 PM
I am listening to the argument. I just don't agree in dividing this states hunters. The old divided we fall theory, held pretty true for Custer.
Post by: smdave on August 05, 2007, 12:30:47 PM
It will be an uphill battle and we really need to do our part get out and vote, vote for people that have our interests. Talk to others about hunting and guns. The dense population in the big cities think guns kill and hunting is bad. If you live in Seattle I do not mean you I am talking about 80% of your neighbors. I live on the wetside.
Dave
Post by: Dman on August 05, 2007, 08:48:25 PM
For myself, I'll say again, I feel strongly that we are talking about HUNTERS ONLY, not the non hunting population on the West side. The fact is the majority of the hunting license buying population resides on the West side and that money DIRECTLY pays for the public lands we hunt in the East side also. It makes no sense from that standpoint and from the standpoint of keeping hunting going in Washington at all to divide the State. I think that's more of a statement of frustration then logic. Personally, on a per capita basis, I cannot see why it's an issue for West sider's to hunt the East side, it's huge country, easily enough for everyone to hunt. My original statement was about how the game department manages the season's already in place and what options as far as season's would be good to look at, dividing the State is not really the same topic, that is a legislative issue and would include a hell of a lot more than just hunting.
If you can come up with a good reason why not...Somebody tell me why a city full of people, most raised with one idea in thier heads, should have voting power over those of us living over here?
Post by: littletoes on August 06, 2007, 09:23:23 PM
But then for me, how would this change the Vote? Would Westsiders vote fore or against hounds? For or Against Traps? Quite a bit of our reasoning comes from how we are raised. Do you understand my implications?
Perhaps we are differant?
Those negative votes, which were differing forms of hunting, came from somewhere.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 10, 2007, 10:01:28 AM
You want better odds so you so called diehard hunters can have better odds. There are four things that need to be done. 1.)Get the game department to manage every unit for an older age class of deer. 2.)Get the game department to allot a percent of the tags to nonresident. (right now its possible for nonresidentsto draw every tag for any given unit.) 3.)Get the game department to allow us to have only one or two choices to put in for the draw instead of four. And 4.)Raise the price for a permit application to around $25.
If these four things happend we wouldn't have 5500 people apply for the desert tag.
Post by: littletoes on August 10, 2007, 10:28:34 AM
Is that ethical?
Post by: Curly on August 10, 2007, 10:31:27 AM
How would you get #1 accomplished with the OTC tag system that we currently have?
Post by: bobcat on August 10, 2007, 10:33:24 AM
There are four things that need to be done. 1.)Get the game department to manage every unit for an older age class of deer.
I don't have time to comment on your entire post, but on this one item in order for that to happen general seasons would have to be eliminated and all deer hunting would be by permit only. That is something that is very unlikely to happen, at least at this point in time. I could see it happening in the future if/when things get much worse than they are now. (meaning more people and less game)
Post by: littletoes on August 10, 2007, 10:36:27 AM
Is that ethical?
The Managers "want" more money, they have higher costs too. But placing the Hunting Heritage out of reach for those that can barley afford it, may not be an ethical advance.
For example....if Washington made it possible for us to be able to hunt with any Weapon in a single year, such as the the use of a bow during a bow season, and if you didn't get your animal, you could use a rifle during rifle season-*With the purchase of an additional Modern Firearm Tag, this would generate some revenue for the State, but again would allow "those that can afford it" more hunting opportunity, developing less 'care' for those that can't. (did I make this point clear enough? Or did I screw the pooch?).
Again, is that Ethical? Is that Fair? I say 'No'.
Post by: littletoes on August 10, 2007, 10:42:21 AM
For example....if Washington made it possible for us to be able to hunt with any Weapon in a single year, such as the the use of a bow during a bow season, and if you didn't get your animal, you could use a rifle during rifle season-*With the purchase of an additional Modern Firearm Tag, this would generate some revenue for the State,
Personly, I would LOVE this. I could hunt with a Bow, AND a Rifle, but I have not contacted the State over this issue due to my feelings of it not being "Right" for those that just plain don't have the income, and afraid of just plain "Heading down that Road", and never coming back.
Man I have a terrible time expressing myself in the written form!
Post by: Bigshooter on August 10, 2007, 11:55:01 AM
Also it wasn't that long ago that you could hunt the bow season and if you didn't kill you could buy a modern firearm tag, or a muzzle loader tag and hunt that season to in washington. But people complained that there were to many people hunting in each season, and that the game was not being manged properly, (maybe an over harvest) and the game department got rid of letting everybody hunt every season.
As far as hunting being a rich mans sport. It is. I hate to say it. But I save a lot of money to hunt every year. I apply in 7 or 8 western states each year. And it cost me a little less than a $1000 a year in nonrefunded dollars to do this. A few extra dollars in my home state wouldn't kill me.
Also you wouldn't be paying any more money to hunt general seasons. It would only cost you more to apply for permitts.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 10, 2007, 12:02:40 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 10, 2007, 12:24:35 PM
The only difference would be I would manage every unit for an older age class of deer. Oregon mostly manages for opportunity! With a select few units managed for an older age class of deer.
The problem with this is the majority of hunters don't hunt for big antlers. Many would be happy to kill a spike. If every unit was managed only for trophy bucks, then the number of hunters would have to be drastically reduced, and that ain't gonna happen.
Post by: Bigshooter on August 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PM
Basically what i'm getting at is if washington would manage every unit for an older age class of deer, first it would make a lot more units in washington more desirable to hunt. This would spread out hunters in a lot of different units. It might make it the same as colorado and we might have 2 or 3 different seasons on each unit. But still maintaining the older age class of deer. And once word got out more nonresidents would be apply here, generating more money for the state as a whole.
I know not everybody would be able to hunt every year. But there are some years that I won't to quit hunting because all I am able to hunt is general seasons with 1000's of other people. I am more than willing to hunt every other year or even longer between hunts to have a more enjoyable hunting expereince.
Post by: bobcat on August 10, 2007, 12:36:22 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on August 10, 2007, 12:39:03 PM
Post by: littletoes on August 10, 2007, 02:16:21 PM
I think that is something that they have attempted to avoid....'ya think?
Post by: Curly on August 10, 2007, 03:02:59 PM
Post by: bornforhorns on October 26, 2007, 08:56:49 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on October 26, 2007, 09:36:13 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 26, 2007, 09:53:51 PM
Post by: Palmer on October 26, 2007, 10:06:19 PM
I hunt whitetail near a doe bedding area every year and I count on the doe to bring in a big buck. I call in at least one buck every year and I hear them grunting back at me as well.
Post by: Palmer on October 26, 2007, 10:24:52 PM
Does taste much better.... :drool:
You're correct.
Post by: Palmer on October 26, 2007, 11:02:50 PM
1) My wife would leave me if I could harvest more. >:(
2) When I watch deer hunting shows they talk of public lands in these states and how there are few if any 3 year old deer or older. They all get harvested and there is very little chance of harvesting a trophy. The films still have huge bucks but they are hunting some private ranch. In Washington I believe the biggest are still yet to be had. There are plenty for all especially if a hunter improves their skills and with a little luck.
3) There are other options; elk, bear, and fishing
4) When the deer pop is down where are all the predators going to go for food? (your dog or cat maybe?)
5) My boss needs me to focus on work :P
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 10:47:18 AM
One of the things I noticed several years ago was the amount of spikes that I saw every day hunting in my areas. Back then there were a few units designated with the 3 point restriction on one side of the road, and "any buck" on the other. As a young man back then, I noticed how many more people hunted the "any buck" side of the road as opposed to the alternative. I also noticed that most of the bucks I saw in the back of pickups in town were 2 points and fork horns. This led me to believe that "most" of the hunters over there were only interested in "success", success being a relative term. When the entire east side went to a 3 point restriction I saw a huge increase in the amount of 2 point bucks and fork horns roaming around the hills, and I still do.
Like a lot of you, I fill out the online questionares regarding our proposed rules and regs, wondering why the issues that I believe need addressing are never on their agenda. I asked them a few years back why they don't try a 4 point restriction in certain units, explaining to them what I have observed, and what I believed would happen to the amount of mature bucks. Their answer really confused me. They told me that "if they put a 4 point restriction in some units, then only mature bucks would be harvested". I told them that was the whole point. Sure most people wouldn't hunt those units, but at the same time a great deal of your 3 points would have opportunity to make it to 4 points, assuming the buck actually carried the 4 point genome, but that's an entirely different discussion. The point being, more 3 points would be able to mature. I believe we would start seeing more 3 points roaming the hills just as I saw the spikes increase to forks and 2 points with the 3 point restriction. Now before you go ripping my theory apart, remember I'm not talking about the entire eastern side of the state, just a few of the units, particularly the winter range units. Gardner, Perrigan, Entiat, etc.
For those of us that are okay with not harvesting an animal every year, holding out for a "trophy" type buck, again "trophy" being a relative term, this would increase the amount of bigger deer we see.
I could go on with more examples, states that have done this, etc. but I fear your boredom setting in, not to mention the bandwidth..........................rf
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2007, 10:54:36 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 11:03:57 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2007, 11:08:11 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2FKaylan_and_Robs_twisp_antlers.jpg&hash=c9f2500aed4c5169c314c06a577b01de636d5601)
Obviosly sort of impressed as I have saved this picture and knew where it was at for several years. ;)
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2007, 11:09:21 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv47%2Fboneaddict%2FScan86a.jpg&hash=9c4bacc21d1b3c2a6cd3105d524d66805192abf5)
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 11:17:20 AM
Post by: Antlershed on October 27, 2007, 11:49:44 AM
I think WA should, and eventually will (sooner, rather than later), switch over to permit only hunts for all Mule deer. According to a buddy, the numbers have been dropping off since the steady increase in the Whitetail populations, and of course, winter kills that they never fully recovered from. Add that to Cougars and disease, and there is a bad situation for our Mule deer. I agree with the ones that said Blacktail and Whitetail could still maintain general seasons. I think the Elk situation is alright (can't really think of a better alternative). The points system WA uses is a complete joke. Why not switch to one similar to Oregon, even though it is more complex and most people don't understand it? I have 11 points on my Elk tag and have never drawn one. I have been putting in for either Margaret or Little Naches for 11 years. My dad has drawn Mod Firearm Toutle Bull with 3 points, Modern Firearm Margaret Bull with 3 points, and Margaret Bull Muzzleloader with 2 points. Those are all some pretty high desired permits, and he's drawn them with very few points.
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2007, 12:13:47 PM
Some people on here might be surprised about how much I pay attention to big deer and their antlers. :chuckle:I know a big buck when I see it. You e-mailed them to me several years ago. I'd like to see your daughter and her deer, I'll keep my eyes open. Both are nice, but that one ranks up there as I LOVE mass.
Post by: jae on October 27, 2007, 12:59:30 PM
I too wish the whole draw process was open to the public with statistic's provided, cripe we couldn't even get last year's harvest result's in time to help us make good decisions on selecting hunts this year. Why the heck do we have a Jan 1 deadline to report if they can't count up the notched tags over a six month period???I agree!
Post by: bowhuntin on October 27, 2007, 01:15:33 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 01:35:16 PM
Hunting: The modern firearm deer hunting season opened Oct. 13 throughout the region. Scott Fitkin, WDFW Okanogan district wildlife biologist, headed up the traditional opening weekend Chewuck check station in the Methow Valley to get a sense of participation and harvest rates. Both were up, Fitkin said, with about 40 percent more hunters stopping by this year compared to last, and the numbers of deer harvested up 26 percent.
"It suggests hunting activity has rebounded from the reduced level we experienced in 2006 during the Tripod wildfire," Fitkin said. "The hunter success rate actually fell slightly from last year, but hunters were generally satisfied. The cooler, wetter weather forecasted could improve harvest opportunity significantly for the second weekend of the season, particularly if snow accumulates at higher elevations."
Deer hunting continues through Oct. 21 throughout the region. Columbia Basin deer hunting potential is good because deer numbers appear to be as high as any time in the past 20 years, said Jim Tabor, WDFW district wildlife biologist. Most, however, occupy private property, so hunters are urged to obtain permission for access.
My question would be, this obviously hasn't happened in the last two years, when the season was shortened from Oct. 28th to Oct. 21st, so if the numbers are where we want them, why have they backed the season up? I talked to several hunters this year, all complained that there have been no deer the last two years. They hunt all day and see few. The fact is that this time of year the weather hasn't pushed the migrators down to where your average hunter hunts, translating into "no deer". I'll tell you this, the permit holders are not going to be doing any complaining. So lets call it what it really is, the animals are a steady revenue stream for the state. They know where the deer are, and know by backing up the season they are effectively reducing the harvest of mature deer, thereby forcing all of us to spend money on permit applications if we ever want a chance at a real trophy. Then to top it all off, they make the season 9 days long forcing everyone to hunt a short window. I would propose starting the season the 15th of Oct. and letting it go through the first week of November, spreading the amount of pressure. On top of that, make it week days only, no weekends. They do it rather effectively for fishing why not hunting. Give the animals a chance to move, and also give us a chance at seeing a real deer, not some local pet. Of course that won't happen because the revenue from the late hunt permits would decline, and they can't have that can they. Anyhow Antlershed, I didn't mean to go off on you or your buddy, just thought you might like to know the truth, and its in their own words, and a little more of mine;^)..........................rf
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 01:42:21 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2007, 01:45:45 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 02:05:01 PM
Post by: Antlershed on October 27, 2007, 02:22:11 PM
Antlershed, your buddy is misinformed. Ask him to disclose his sources when he makes a statement like that. The fact is, the mule deer numbers are as high as they have been in the last 20 years. Here is a quote from http://wdfw.wa.gov/huntcorn.htm go there and read the "weekender report" the quote says;
Using the WDFW weekend report as a primary source doesn't seem too compelling. I don't know what sources WSU uses, but that is where his info came from since he just graduated from there last spring. I know the area where I went grouse hunting this year, we used to see 20-30 deer EVERY day, and multiple legal bucks. This year, the most deer we saw in one day was 2, and not even a buck. The problem there is the Fallow Deer spreading disease, and the increased number of Cougars. You said it yourself that WDFW is contradicting themselves by stating the deer herds are at an all time high but having a short season. Which mis-statement is in their best interest? In the far east part of the state, when the deer (Muleys and whitetail) move down to the lowlands, which is easier for a cougar to catch? Mule deer by far.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2007, 02:44:09 PM
Absolutely, there is another discussion that should be brought up.
I have spoken to WDFW officers and area biologists and all have told me the north central herds are in great shape, I didn't discuss the SE herds. I pointed out the article simply because the majority of people don't take things seriously unless its in black and white, not as my single source of information............rf
Post by: bornforhorns on October 28, 2007, 10:48:28 PM
Post by: Slenk on October 29, 2007, 07:02:39 AM
Have done what they want redusing Elk herds . They have the Yakima herd down from nearly 12,000 to somewhere in the 9,000 head area . The system seems to be working for them . I have hunted this state for over 50 years . Have seen a lot of changes in management and heard numbers . We used to not have any drawing at all . On deer you could not shoot spikes had to be 2 point or better on both antlers . When they started the drawing we went for quit a few years ,you put in for one area . Then they changed it to where if you got drawn you could not put in for 3 years . But you could still only put in for one area.
I think if they would go back to the 3 year draw and leave every thing else like it is it would improve a lot . I personally know a family that one or more of them gets drawn every year . That sucks .
Slenk
Post by: jackelope on October 29, 2007, 08:00:22 AM
where i hunt in the blues at 3400' or so...the whitetails pretty much stay put for the winter from what i've seen. the mule deer all go to the snake river low country, but the whitetails seem to stay there.
Post by: 50CalJim on October 29, 2007, 12:23:57 PM
Post by: Moosehunt on October 29, 2007, 12:38:34 PM
This is my first post.....great forum for discussions like this. I only skimmed this post because I wanted to make a few critical points.
I just want to comment on the point system that is currently being used in WA. This is NOT a weighted system. A weighted point system is one that gives preference to point holders from high to low. This means someone putting in for the DESERT A hunt with 7 accrued points will always get drawn over someone with 6 and below. This state employs a lottery point system. Those with higher point values have more balls in the barrel. It does not mean someone with 7 points or 49 chances will be chosen over someone with 6 or 36 chances. Statistically, the odds are more favorable for the person with 7 over someone with 6, that's all. So in a nutshell, it does not matter what permit hunt you apply for, if you have higher than average points, you will have a higher statistical chance of getting drawn, but it's not a guarantee.
Here-in-lies the reasoning by WA WDFW to do this.....money. They create a sense of fairness to the uninformed by going overboard to explain the lottery system. What they fail to represent is the fact that it is not a 'preference/weighted' point system. You could put in for a permit hunt forever and never get drawn. Hence, my point about money. The state benefits because everyone will always throw their $5 bill at a chance of a lifetime. $5 bills add up.
Post by: Antlershed on October 29, 2007, 01:45:17 PM
No Draw Only!!!! I will fight that tooth and nail. Go one choice, successful applicants have a waiting period of 5 years after being drawn or whatever but no draw only!! Why do we have to be like other states? How many trophy mulies from november rut hunts does one need is my question? If you're truly a good hunter do it in October when deer are on an even playing field. I love the way Washington is doing it...maybe back off on the number of permits for all weapon types...that'll leave'm for the general guys the next year. Just keep tabs on your populations, hunter success rates, and how bad the winter is and adjust accordingly....Active management is good management.I only put in for one permit choice anyway, so that is fine with me.I was just using Oregon as an example, not that we had to be like them. Nobody said all the permit hunts would have to be "November rut hunts". How else can the WDFW manage the population if it is getting too low? It is already 3-point minimum. The only other way I see is going to permit only to reduce the number of hunters in their. This isn't to turn everything into "Trophy Hunting", in my mind anyway...it is to help the population get back to where it used to be. If the populations recovered, they could always return to a general season.
Post by: Colville on October 29, 2007, 01:55:47 PM
Some Octobers we get early weather and hunters really kick em in the balls and it takes a couple years to get right, but the overall population not just the huntable 3 pt or better pop remains intact.
Post by: Dman on October 29, 2007, 03:54:19 PM
Post by: Moosehunt on October 29, 2007, 04:11:00 PM
Land preservation has it's problems if the state is given ownership and/or management control. The tribes......I sat in a meeting with some local/national conservation groups - a one-on-one (maybe 15 of us) - with Dr. Koenigs. He had some very interesting things to say with regards to the land piece. DNR is making deals with local tribes and is doing it without consultation with WDFW. Two different state agencies....two different agendas. Need to keep as much land in private ownership as possible....including the tree companies. Land swaps can be hazardous to our game populations as well......take one overhunted piece, give it to the lumber companies and trade it for another with a healthy population.....biggest example to your point about the draw hunt scenario.....Nooksack Elk herd....24 permits available.....6rifle, 3muzzle, 3archery, 12 for the tribes.....
Post by: sisu on October 29, 2007, 04:18:11 PM
What bothers me more is the lack of public lands in Washington compared to Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming and maybe a few other western states. Near me it seems the state has been selling of thousands of acres to a company called Clearwater Development. They'd had public meeting over it but going to the meetings were a waste of time as the land deal had been made prior to the meeting and discussions. What good is a meeting over the sale of public lands if the PEOPLE don't have a say in it? The best part of all this is that the state pits one outdoor group against another. For instance the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (I believe that is what it's called) supported the sale of our lands near us to get some land else where in the state. End result I can't hunt near my house any longer the land is gone, no one is making any more either. >:(
You can change the draws all you want but if you're losing land to hunt on where are you going to go?
Post by: Dman on October 29, 2007, 04:55:02 PM
The draw system seems fair to me the way it is but then I'm not a rocket scientist.
What bothers me more is the lack of public lands in Washington compared to Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Wyoming and maybe a few other western states. Near me it seems the state has been selling of thousands of acres to a company called Clearwater Development. They'd had public meeting over it but going to the meetings were a waste of time as the land deal had been made prior to the meeting and discussions. What good is a meeting over the sale of public lands if the PEOPLE don't have a say in it? The best part of all this is that the state pits one outdoor group against another. For instance the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (I believe that is what it's called) supported the sale of our lands near us to get some land else where in the state. End result I can't hunt near my house any longer the land is gone, no one is making any more either. >:(
You can change the draws all you want but if you're losing land to hunt on where are you going to go?
I AGREE! That's why my next GOV letter is going to address overcrowding and shrinking lands in Wa..
Post by: edmondshunter on October 29, 2007, 06:08:47 PM
Say you wanted to hunt the 460gmu, declare that at the time of tag purchase and hope you get the "privilege" to hunt that gmu. Maybe the state could open an area like Tiger Mnt. State park for 1 week to hunters and by the same fashion, use a first come, first serve method.
Some states limit legal shooting light to dawn and dusk. We lucked out to get the extra hour of legal shooting light. Maybe that change would help get buck numbers and up. Anyway just my 2 cents.
I like it the way it is, but change isnt always bad. Think about our kids rights and what we do can either help or hinder both generations.
Post by: bornforhorns on October 29, 2007, 10:52:09 PM
Your opinions mean "squat", if my opinion mattered I would say since 1991 (16 years) The hunting has only gotten better and during the general season I have seen a 175+ mule deer every year. I get to hunt about 5 of those days if I'm lucky. I'm talking Central Washington in general. If other parts of the state are hurting...ie: Yakima or the Blues than maybe management strategies that are different can be put in place. They use to have a 2 pt. limit when the rest of the state had nothing.
3 pt. or better has definitely helped, shorter seasons have definitely helped, no need for draw only at this point. Why are some you so again'st the current plan is my question? Are you not seeing deer? Are you not finding bucks? In order to kill big deer...you got to go where there are big deer...they are definitely here!!! Are they running all over hell...geezus no! This isn't Wyoming where there's more deer than people. Hunt 5000 ft. and above in October...hint...the CASCADES (you know the big mountain range in the middle of our state)...glass, glass, glass and than do some more glassing and you just MIGHT be rewarded. That to me is a hell of a lot bigger accomplishment than killing one in the desert or foothills of Wyoming.
Hunting Muleys in the high Cascades rivals any hunt in my book. How about some of you Outfitters that have been doing this for years...Icicle? What are your opinions? If I'm wrong so be it. I don't claim to be David Long or Cameron Haynes but give me a pair of decent binos. and I will find a nice deer.
For the record...I am not a muzzleloader, but if anybody is getting the shaft...I agree it's you. But, even than there are a couple really quality hunts out there...one I might try this year since I was drawn for the multi. season.
Finally, I must say that I respect everybody's opinion on here even though it doesn't sound like it. I'm just glad I'm not discussing it with somebody from Utah or Montana...that's why I love this site. Happy hunting everybody! Hopefully I can notch a big Whitey here in a couple weeks or a big muley with a bow if that doesn't happen. God I love this state.