Post by: Dave Workman on October 24, 2013, 11:58:15 AM
I watched him shoot the buck, pictured below, on the opener over on the Snake River. Gun was a Winchester Model 70. Ammo was my handloads, 180-grain Nosler Accu-Tips ahead of 57 grs of Hodgdon Hybrid 100V.
I have hunted off and on with him for the better part of a decade now. He's from around here.
==================================
When I was a kid, Eastern WA's modern firearm Elk season was a full two weeks in November. Late enough to give us elk moving weather....snow, wind , rain; and the animals moved down from the high country. In 1985 it snowed almost 5 feet over night during elk season. Elk hung in many camps and men took their sons out of school for the week, oftentimes BOTH weeks. (provided grades were good enough.) Wide spots on Highway 12 and 410 like Naches, Rimrock Retreat, and Cliffdell resembled major shopping centers on Christmas Eve...only these were men buying gas, groceries, and supplies for their full two weeks in the woods. Signs were strung across the road and hung in local shops saying “Welcome Hunters” and we were not told to hide our kills by the game dept (we had a Game Dept back then). A pile of big elk in the back of your truck was a badge of honor back then. ~It still is in places where people understand where meat comes from.
Elk hunters spent lots of money supporting these little mountain communities. They came enmasse from all over the state because the hunting was good, often great. And in the 80's they didn't have to choose their weapons…or their friends. Choose your weapon, AKA “Resource Allocation” split up a lot of elk camps.....many elk hunters believe that was by design. If you wanted to be an archer, a rifleman, and a smokepole stuffer, you could buy all three tags and have 3 months of hunting opportunity (limits were still one deer and one elk a year and we had twice as many hunters). Today you ask us to send you $6 to enter a lottery for a chance to sell us that privilege.
We didn't have to watch 6 point bulls walk by. A cow tag was good the day elk season opened, not 3 days later.
The annual elk hunt in WA was much more of a hunt back then. Today, our season is one week at the end of Oct. The 70 degree temps forecast for this weekend's opener ensure it to be a “Quality” armed elk camping/ elk watching experience for the thousands who still live to hunt elk in their ancestral areas.. I’ll spend my money and precious 2 weeks of vacation in Montana again this year. Their "Welcome Hunters!" signs went up last month and don't come down until January..
Brian Lull
General Manager,
Northwest Sportsman
and ex WA elk hunter
Post by: vandeman17 on October 24, 2013, 12:09:08 PM
Post by: jackelope on October 24, 2013, 12:16:22 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 24, 2013, 12:34:40 PM
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Post by: vandeman17 on October 24, 2013, 12:38:44 PM
I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Good point and I didn't really think about the effect the "good old days" had on where we are now. I think one of my biggest gripes is first off, having to declare a weapon, then having to declare a side. We still can only shoot one elk so I don't see how making us declare a weapon really changes things besides getting us to spend more money on the "chance" to buy a mutli season tag. I am sure hunter success might go up a bit because they can spend more time in the woods but I don't think the increased harvest would be enough to negatively effect the numbers. Just another way to steal our money, well not mine anymore. :chuckle:
Post by: coachcw on October 24, 2013, 12:39:36 PM
Post by: npaull on October 24, 2013, 12:56:59 PM
Quote
There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Post by: jay.sharkbait on October 24, 2013, 01:00:22 PM
QuoteThere's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Who is going to pay for the privately held timber land?
Post by: Bob33 on October 24, 2013, 01:07:14 PM
I started hunting elk in 1968. For many years I hunted on Bethel Ridge with my father and friends. I have very fond memories of those times. We hunted with ”modern” rifles, not archery or muzzleloader equipment although we could have. Yes, we often stopped near Greenwater on the way home and drove up roads to the Crest, hunting legally on both sides.
I too remember the blizzard of 1985.
I remember the excitement of getting a “cow tag” in the mail every few years.
Yes, spikes and six points were legal.
What I don’t remember: overwhelming numbers of legal elk. In all the years I hunted, I believe our party of four killed two or three bulls. We often saw cows, but saw very few bulls. I suspect if you were to look up harvest data for those decades, they would not be significantly different than data from current times.
The cow / antlerless permits were essentially a sure thing back then. They have been royally screwed up with our permit system that allocated points to all categories in 2010; it may take decades to restore fairness to that process.
“Resource allocation” and our permit system have done some real harm to hunting opportunity. In addition, loss of habitat, loss of public access, increased predation, and other factors have certainly made it more difficult to have a quality hunting experience.
All that said, I’ve killed more elk in Washington in the last ten years than I did in my first twenty.
Post by: JLS on October 24, 2013, 01:09:16 PM
We defiantly have a management issue , seems to me way to many anti hunters working for the department of game. you don't see to many vegetarians working at McDonolds. Someone is killing the elk for sure since we have less hunters . I still believe that if you work hard at it you can be a very successful elk hunter in wa. but we need to quit the bs and manage the herd , the tribes need to be held in check better as well as other predators . It's a numbers game and if one aspect is off it screws the whole plan up.
Good luck with controlling the tribal harvest. The only way that'll happen is through the courts, and the court consensus right now is that tribes can take up to half of the elk harvest.
The big picture here is the affect that agriculture has on elk in WA, relative to states like MT, WY, and ID. Look at all of the crops that are grown in WA, and how few of them are in any way friendly to elk. Factor in the financial liability that WDFW can incur through crop damage complaints. It's not hard to see why they manage the way they do. WA could have a lot more elk if there wasn't the continual conflict with ag interests, which I'm in no way denouncing in any way.
Post by: csaaphill on October 25, 2013, 10:46:32 PM
Maybe write WDFW?
I have oftentimes may get ignored but if enough do might get a bur inder thier blanket to make some kind of changes?
Actually I'd be for a 2pt season for a year or two three pt or better elk season for a year or two just to change things up.
I too remember 1985 that was the year we camped next to these guys in pomeroy unit. I hiked all the way to the botom of the canyon even though wind was howling. Had good coveralls on so didn't feel it much. Din't kill nothing, but had fun.
I remember camping in the lick creek unit and had a good fire going, snow was thick and at night me and dad would melt cans in the fire was fun then.
ALthough I wouldn't quit just because things change write and make your voice heard!
Post by: Killmore on October 26, 2013, 10:12:50 AM
Post by: Mike450r on October 26, 2013, 10:22:18 AM
QuoteThere's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Private forests have the best habitat and resource management.
Post by: Hunting Cowboy on October 26, 2013, 10:39:58 AM
When I was a kid, Eastern WA's modern firearm Elk season was a full two weeks in November. Late enough to give us elk moving weather....snow, wind , rain; and the animals moved down from the high country. In 1985 it snowed almost 5 feet over night during elk season. Elk hung in many camps and men took their sons out of school for the week, oftentimes BOTH weeks. (provided grades were good enough.) Wide spots on Highway 12 and 410 like Naches, Rimrock Retreat, and Cliffdell resembled major shopping centers on Christmas Eve...only these were men buying gas, groceries, and supplies for their full two weeks in the woods. Signs were strung across the road and hung in local shops saying “Welcome Hunters” and we were not told to hide our kills by the game dept (we had a Game Dept back then). A pile of big elk in the back of your truck was a badge of honor back then. ~It still is in places where people understand where meat comes from.
Elk hunters spent lots of money supporting these little mountain communities. They came enmasse from all over the state because the hunting was good, often great. And in the 80's they didn't have to choose their weapons…or their friends. Choose your weapon, AKA “Resource Allocation” split up a lot of elk camps.....many elk hunters believe that was by design. If you wanted to be an archer, a rifleman, and a smokepole stuffer, you could buy all three tags and have 3 months of hunting opportunity (limits were still one deer and one elk a year and we had twice as many hunters). Today you ask us to send you $6 to enter a lottery for a chance to sell us that privilege.
We didn't have to watch 6 point bulls walk by. A cow tag was good the day elk season opened, not 3 days later.
The annual elk hunt in WA was much more of a hunt back then. Today, our season is one week at the end of Oct. The 70 degree temps forecast for this weekend's opener ensure it to be a “Quality” armed elk camping/ elk watching experience for the thousands who still live to hunt elk in their ancestral areas.. I’ll spend my money and precious 2 weeks of vacation in Montana again this year. Their "Welcome Hunters!" signs went up last month and don't come down until January..
Brian Lull
General Manager,
Northwest Sportsman
and ex WA elk hunter
Well said Dave!
Post by: boneaddict on October 26, 2013, 10:47:52 AM
I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.GPS, hunting forums, dependable 4 wheel drives, rangefinders, optics, weapons that shoot 1000 yards, better calls, trailcameras, satellite, googleearth/maps, and other technologies many welcome...haven't helped. Throw the wolf agenda and native hunting pressure (ebay and the like).
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Post by: boneaddict on October 26, 2013, 10:48:52 AM
Post by: boneaddict on October 26, 2013, 11:01:56 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 26, 2013, 09:28:56 PM
QuoteThere's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Private forests have the best habitat and resource management.
The best habitat for what? Mushrooms?
Monoculture, spraying the equivalent of roundup, crowded forests that don't let in the light, mud filled streams caused by erosion and other problems on "managed" tree farms do not equate to the best habitat for deer and elk and other forest creatures. In western Washington, the habitat was much better back in the 60s and 70s before private tree farms went to "modern management".
Post by: bugs n bones on October 26, 2013, 09:45:05 PM
Post by: KFhunter on October 26, 2013, 09:57:25 PM
QuoteThere's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Private forests have the best habitat and resource management.
The best habitat for what? Mushrooms?
Monoculture, spraying the equivalent of roundup, crowded forests that don't let in the light, mud filled streams caused by erosion and other problems on "managed" tree farms do not equate to the best habitat for deer and elk and other forest creatures. In western Washington, the habitat was much better back in the 60s and 70s before private tree farms went to "modern management".
You haven't seen the "this area has been sprayed for noxious weeds blah blah" signs on the CNF?
Post by: bugs n bones on October 26, 2013, 10:21:31 PM
Post by: mlovely83 on October 26, 2013, 10:34:30 PM
As for the special draw permits; I like the idea of special quality hunt drawings. It allows for greater high success hunts.
Adversely, I archery hunt the Western side no more than 20 miles from my home. The last 3 years I have taken a cow in late season. In the early season of those years I had my chances at a quality bull. This year I was successful and took down a 6x6.
The moral of this story is Elk hunting is typically a very difficult, buts the reason why I love it. Those "hunters" that want the wall hanger and hunt merely for the antlers can pay to go out of state and hunt a high fence. I however hunt to feed my family and with time and effort I have been successful every year.
Hunting is not a passion, Its an obsession!
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 01:52:13 PM
With the exception of GPS and the internet, our equipement has not changed that dramatically since the 1985 hunting seasons. Certainly not enough to justify the changes in the seasons since then, especially with the decrease of hunters over the same time period. :twocents:I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.GPS, hunting forums, dependable 4 wheel drives, rangefinders, optics, weapons that shoot 1000 yards, better calls, trailcameras, satellite, googleearth/maps, and other technologies many welcome...haven't helped. Throw the wolf agenda and native hunting pressure (ebay and the like).
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2013, 02:02:07 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2013, 02:13:19 PM
Post by: Pilot_Hunter on October 27, 2013, 02:21:46 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 02:27:24 PM
Really? This forum, internet(I know you mentioned these, but I think these have really impacted things), are your Swaros pre 1985. How about cellphones? Pretty easy to see a buck and get a pic to a friend in less than 10 seconds, except for those of us who haven't gotten a cell yet. Got any Sitka gear, Kifaru or whatever they call it. Don't think compounds have upgraded since 85? How about Muzzeloaders. Factory ammo hasn't improved? When did carbon arrows become the norm? How about Quads. I don't recall a lot of Razors running around back in the 80s. :dunno:I mentioned the internet and no my Swaro's are not circa '85 but I did have quality optics for the time.
My first cell phone was in about '87, but even today I don't use my cell phone to hunt with (AT&T service is spotty at best), although I do carry it for emergency purposes, no advantage for me since then.
I don't own any Sitka or Kifaru (sp) gear so it too has never given me a advantage.
I have never shot a deer/elk with archery gear past 30 yards, even way back in '85 trads and compounds were capable of performing at this distance.
I have only shot one animal in my life with a muzzy,(this year) it was open sites, exposed nipple, non sabot, not much different than what was available in '85.
I have never shot a deer/elk with a rifle further than 500 yards, factory ammo in '85 was plenty capable of performing at this range way back then.
I have never hunted from a quad or side by side, and yes similar toys were available back in "85, some would even argue they had less restrictions on them than today, again not a big difference from '85.
So, to answer your questions, and to reiterate my point, things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes. :twocents:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 27, 2013, 03:24:57 PM
Really? This forum, internet(I know you mentioned these, but I think these have really impacted things), are your Swaros pre 1985. How about cellphones? Pretty easy to see a buck and get a pic to a friend in less than 10 seconds, except for those of us who haven't gotten a cell yet. Got any Sitka gear, Kifaru or whatever they call it. Don't think compounds have upgraded since 85? How about Muzzeloaders. Factory ammo hasn't improved? When did carbon arrows become the norm? How about Quads. I don't recall a lot of Razors running around back in the 80s. :dunno:I mentioned the internet and no my Swaro's are not circa '85 but I did have quality optics for the time.
My first cell phone was in about '87, but even today I don't use my cell phone to hunt with (AT&T service is spotty at best), although I do carry it for emergency purposes, no advantage for me since then.
I don't own any Sitka or Kifaru (sp) gear so it too has never given me a advantage.
I have never shot a deer/elk with archery gear past 30 yards, even way back in '85 trads and compounds were capable of performing at this distance.
I have only shot one animal in my life with a muzzy,(this year) it was open sites, exposed nipple, non sabot, not much different than what was available in '85.
I have never shot a deer/elk with a rifle further than 500 yards, factory ammo in '85 was plenty capable of performing at this range way back then.
I have never hunted from a quad or side by side, and yes similar toys were available back in "85, some would even argue they had less restrictions on them than today, again not a big difference from '85.
So, to answer your questions, and to reiterate my point, things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes. :twocents:
You haven't, but how about the average hunter?
Post by: combs338 on October 27, 2013, 03:27:54 PM
Really? This forum, internet(I know you mentioned these, but I think these have really impacted things), are your Swaros pre 1985. How about cellphones? Pretty easy to see a buck and get a pic to a friend in less than 10 seconds, except for those of us who haven't gotten a cell yet. Got any Sitka gear, Kifaru or whatever they call it. Don't think compounds have upgraded since 85? How about Muzzeloaders. Factory ammo hasn't improved? When did carbon arrows become the norm? How about Quads. I don't recall a lot of Razors running around back in the 80s. :dunno:I mentioned the internet and no my Swaro's are not circa '85 but I did have quality optics for the time.
My first cell phone was in about '87, but even today I don't use my cell phone to hunt with (AT&T service is spotty at best), although I do carry it for emergency purposes, no advantage for me since then.
I don't own any Sitka or Kifaru (sp) gear so it too has never given me a advantage.
I have never shot a deer/elk with archery gear past 30 yards, even way back in '85 trads and compounds were capable of performing at this distance.
I have only shot one animal in my life with a muzzy,(this year) it was open sites, exposed nipple, non sabot, not much different than what was available in '85.
I have never shot a deer/elk with a rifle further than 500 yards, factory ammo in '85 was plenty capable of performing at this range way back then.
I have never hunted from a quad or side by side, and yes similar toys were available back in "85, some would even argue they had less restrictions on them than today, again not a big difference from '85.
So, to answer your questions, and to reiterate my point, things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes. :twocents:
Well said.
Post by: snowpack on October 27, 2013, 03:39:50 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 27, 2013, 03:50:05 PM
Post by: Ridgeratt on October 27, 2013, 04:00:39 PM
Listening to my Dad, Uncles, and Grandpa talk about elk hunting in the 70's and 80's makes me wish I was around back then. Same with deer and duck. I missed the good ol' days :(
JJB11B Right now you are living your good old days.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 27, 2013, 04:15:10 PM
I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Just a quick check on the WDFW website, in 1997, 68,492 hunters purchased tags, and harvested 4,919 Elk,
In 2012, 94, 590 hunters purchased tags, (an increase of 28,098 close to 40%) and harvested 9162 Elk, (an increase of 4,242 or over 50%)
The reason "the good old days" were just that, before it was so cool to be a hunter, I know I have introduced the sport to at least a dozen new hunters.
And every year I meet someone else interested, especially my children.
Read These forums, good stories, great success photos of beautiful Bulls every year...
Lots of Elk meat ending up in freezers...
Sure other states are looking attractive, but that is just because they have not been "Californicated" yet, Washington’s population grew from 4.1 million in 1980 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 8.8 million by 2040.
You think it is bad now, wait until then...
Post by: Humptulips on October 27, 2013, 04:15:40 PM
QuoteThere's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Amen! Make it public and protected! Habitat loss is *THE THREAT* to hunting!
Private forests have the best habitat and resource management.
The best habitat for what? Mushrooms?
Monoculture, spraying the equivalent of roundup, crowded forests that don't let in the light, mud filled streams caused by erosion and other problems on "managed" tree farms do not equate to the best habitat for deer and elk and other forest creatures. In western Washington, the habitat was much better back in the 60s and 70s before private tree farms went to "modern management".
Besides the spray you are dead wrong. The crowded forests that don't let in light describes the ONF perfectly, not so much private land.
I don't know where you get the mud filled streams thing. That's total BS but I don't know where it comes into an elk management discussion.
Access is a huge problem with the leasing gaining momentum but it's not all rosey on the public land either. Ever try to hike down one of the roads that has been decommissioned? For sure that will happen on any private land Wild Olympics takes over.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on October 27, 2013, 04:21:59 PM
Taking away the option to hunt during other seasons was the price for that opportunity.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 04:24:59 PM
The average hunter has not been hunting since '85 so they can't comment on what it was like. The average hunter doesn't use Swaro's, or Sitka/Kifaru or quads/side by sides either.Really? This forum, internet(I know you mentioned these, but I think these have really impacted things), are your Swaros pre 1985. How about cellphones? Pretty easy to see a buck and get a pic to a friend in less than 10 seconds, except for those of us who haven't gotten a cell yet. Got any Sitka gear, Kifaru or whatever they call it. Don't think compounds have upgraded since 85? How about Muzzeloaders. Factory ammo hasn't improved? When did carbon arrows become the norm? How about Quads. I don't recall a lot of Razors running around back in the 80s. :dunno:I mentioned the internet and no my Swaro's are not circa '85 but I did have quality optics for the time.
My first cell phone was in about '87, but even today I don't use my cell phone to hunt with (AT&T service is spotty at best), although I do carry it for emergency purposes, no advantage for me since then.
I don't own any Sitka or Kifaru (sp) gear so it too has never given me a advantage.
I have never shot a deer/elk with archery gear past 30 yards, even way back in '85 trads and compounds were capable of performing at this distance.
I have only shot one animal in my life with a muzzy,(this year) it was open sites, exposed nipple, non sabot, not much different than what was available in '85.
I have never shot a deer/elk with a rifle further than 500 yards, factory ammo in '85 was plenty capable of performing at this range way back then.
I have never hunted from a quad or side by side, and yes similar toys were available back in "85, some would even argue they had less restrictions on them than today, again not a big difference from '85.
So, to answer your questions, and to reiterate my point, things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes. :twocents:
You haven't, but how about the average hunter?
And perhaps the most important thing for all of you to think about, The seasons were changed dramatically before cell phones, internet and GPS were used so prevalently as well. ;)
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 27, 2013, 04:41:17 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2013, 04:45:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 04:48:23 PM
Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
I've got thick skin. ;)
Regardless how much technology you choose to use or see in the field, (I would argue I spend more time hunting big game each year than you do ;) ) you might respond to the last sentance of my previous post.
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 04:49:44 PM
Trailcams, scentlock, coverscents, better calls, range finders, black powder changes, I'm sure none of that has contributed that's why its a million dollar industry.Don't forget Luminoks :chuckle:
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 27, 2013, 04:55:24 PM
Aren't those the little lights that help increase harvest rates by helping you to be able to take an un-ethical shot. :chuckle:Trailcams, scentlock, coverscents, better calls, range finders, black powder changes, I'm sure none of that has contributed that's why its a million dollar industry.Don't forget Luminoks :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 05:01:52 PM
Thats the one, the latest technological advancement toward the demise of hunting seasons. ;)Aren't those the little lights that help increase harvest rates by helping you to be able to take an un-ethical shot. :chuckle:Trailcams, scentlock, coverscents, better calls, range finders, black powder changes, I'm sure none of that has contributed that's why its a million dollar industry.Don't forget Luminoks :chuckle:
Post by: Dave Workman on October 27, 2013, 05:34:48 PM
When I was a kid, Eastern WA's modern firearm Elk season was a full two weeks in November. Late enough to give us elk moving weather....snow, wind , rain; and the animals moved down from the high country. In 1985 it snowed almost 5 feet over night during elk season. Elk hung in many camps and men took their sons out of school for the week, oftentimes BOTH weeks. (provided grades were good enough.) Wide spots on Highway 12 and 410 like Naches, Rimrock Retreat, and Cliffdell resembled major shopping centers on Christmas Eve...only these were men buying gas, groceries, and supplies for their full two weeks in the woods. Signs were strung across the road and hung in local shops saying “Welcome Hunters” and we were not told to hide our kills by the game dept (we had a Game Dept back then). A pile of big elk in the back of your truck was a badge of honor back then. ~It still is in places where people understand where meat comes from.
Elk hunters spent lots of money supporting these little mountain communities. They came enmasse from all over the state because the hunting was good, often great. And in the 80's they didn't have to choose their weapons…or their friends. Choose your weapon, AKA “Resource Allocation” split up a lot of elk camps.....many elk hunters believe that was by design. If you wanted to be an archer, a rifleman, and a smokepole stuffer, you could buy all three tags and have 3 months of hunting opportunity (limits were still one deer and one elk a year and we had twice as many hunters). Today you ask us to send you $6 to enter a lottery for a chance to sell us that privilege.
We didn't have to watch 6 point bulls walk by. A cow tag was good the day elk season opened, not 3 days later.
The annual elk hunt in WA was much more of a hunt back then. Today, our season is one week at the end of Oct. The 70 degree temps forecast for this weekend's opener ensure it to be a “Quality” armed elk camping/ elk watching experience for the thousands who still live to hunt elk in their ancestral areas.. I’ll spend my money and precious 2 weeks of vacation in Montana again this year. Their "Welcome Hunters!" signs went up last month and don't come down until January..
Brian Lull
General Manager,
Northwest Sportsman
and ex WA elk hunter
Well said Dave!
Cowboy: That was Brian Lull, not me. I'm just the middle man.
Post by: Dave Workman on October 27, 2013, 05:50:39 PM
And the purpose behind "resource allocation" was to get the Archery and ML guys out of the woods when that MAJORITY were out, a result of Archers and Muzzleloader hunters request for separate seasons.
Taking away the option to hunt during other seasons was the price for that opportunity.
I can tell you that the bowhunters who pushed for RA back in the day thought they were really going to get a boon, and for a few years they did.
now I occasionally hear gripes from some/many (whatevah) bowhunters about their seasons being cut back at least in some areas. some of the black powder guys have lost certain areas they originally had too.
I sympathize with them a bit and then again I don't.
I hunted black powder elk for several years running, but went back to modern rifle when the area I primarily hunted was eliminated from the BP season. Ah ,well. My longtime pals stuck with modern rifles and I like hunting with pals.
Post by: boneaddict on October 27, 2013, 06:01:36 PM
Post by: bugs n bones on October 27, 2013, 06:14:53 PM
I didn't forget them, though I don't think they will be the demise to our hunting future, so didn't need to be mentioned. Probably along those lines though of technology. I wonder what the market will think up next.I heard from a very reliable source that law enforcement has figured out how to tune in to the freaquency of the collars on the elk and have used it to there advantage
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 06:29:42 PM
I didn't forget them, though I don't think they will be the demise to our hunting future, so didn't need to be mentioned. Probably along those lines though of technology. I wonder what the market will think up next.Drones for scouting
Post by: bugs n bones on October 27, 2013, 06:32:56 PM
:chuckle:I didn't forget them, though I don't think they will be the demise to our hunting future, so didn't need to be mentioned. Probably along those lines though of technology. I wonder what the market will think up next.Drones for scouting
Post by: huntnphool on October 27, 2013, 06:35:12 PM
Serious, why hike up over that ridge to see if that big buck is on the other side, when you can sit in your truck with a iPad and send a drone that gives live feeds?:chuckle:I didn't forget them, though I don't think they will be the demise to our hunting future, so didn't need to be mentioned. Probably along those lines though of technology. I wonder what the market will think up next.Drones for scouting
Post by: turkeyfeather on October 27, 2013, 06:35:46 PM
Post by: JJB11B on October 27, 2013, 08:37:06 PM
thats depressingListening to my Dad, Uncles, and Grandpa talk about elk hunting in the 70's and 80's makes me wish I was around back then. Same with deer and duck. I missed the good ol' days :(
JJB11B Right now you are living your good old days.
Post by: Dave Workman on October 28, 2013, 09:35:49 AM
Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
Ah, but with all of this new technology...have the harvest figures and percentages changed significantly?
Methinks you may be missing the point of the original commentary, and are engaged in a thread derailment, if not a hijack, perhaps unintentionally.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 28, 2013, 10:25:26 AM
I was simply making a comment to a post made by another member. No derailment going on here. I understand the point of the OP to the fullest extent. I just dont like one sided judgements such as the one i argued.Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
Ah, but with all of this new technology...have the harvest figures and percentages
changed significantly?
Methinks you may be missing the point of the original commentary, and are engaged in a thread derailment, if not a hijack, perhaps unintentionally.
i love it how you wink at everyone! Its cute. However wrong you may be about how much i spend in the woods versus you, the fact of the matter remains that just because you dont utilize newer technology doesnt mean that most other new age hunters dont. They do. The reason the harvest numbers have stayed pretty similar is more likley due to the reduction in overall hunter numbers. Lets face it, were a slowly dying breed. :twocents:Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
I've got thick skin. ;)
Regardless how much technology you choose to use or see in the field, (I would argue I spend more time hunting big game each year than you do ;) ) you might respond to the last sentance of my previous post.
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2013, 10:34:00 AM
I was simply making a comment to a post made by another member. No derailment going on here. I understand the point of the OP to the fullest extent. I just dont like one sided judgements such as the one i argued.Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
Ah, but with all of this new technology...have the harvest figures and percentages changed significantly?
Methinks you may be missing the point of the original commentary, and are engaged in a thread derailment, if not a hijack, perhaps unintentionally.Spend more time in the woods and you would be amazed by the amount of new technology being used to hunt! Maybe not you or anyone you know but its obvious that you either dont get around or you dont pay attention. :twocents: please dont take that to personal.
I've got thick skin. ;)
Regardless how much technology you choose to use or see in the field, (I would argue I spend more time hunting big game each year than you do ;) ) you might respond to the last sentance of my previous post.
One sided judgements? You mean like suggesting our current situation is a result of technological advancements in equipment isn't?
You still have not addressed my statement Fowlweather, my guess is you can't!
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 28, 2013, 10:37:20 AM
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
I never said the seasons didnt change previous to the major advancements in technology. What i said was that wether you believe it or not people use a lot of advanced technology to hunt these days compared to years ago. I thought you had thick skin? What happened? Why are you so upset?:chuckle: I'm not upset, just waiting for you to admit that the "technology" argument is unsubstantiated and doesn't belong in this thread, which you just did!
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 28, 2013, 11:05:58 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 28, 2013, 11:08:36 AM
....the fact of the matter remains that just because you dont utilize newer technology doesnt mean that most other new age hunters dont. They do. The reason the harvest numbers have stayed pretty similar is more likley due to the reduction in overall hunter numbers. Lets face it, were a slowly dying breed. :twocents:
"Most likely?"
That's a hell of an assumption.
It could also be reduced opportunity due to shifts in the season timing, and shorter season, from two full weeks and three full weekends to a nine-day season with two weekends that begins at least a week earlier than back in the 1970s and 80s.
That has accounted for the loss in hunter numbers, too. Just look at the OP. Here's a guy who grew up in Washington, hunted public land for years (I know because I was with him on many of those treks) and he's now spending his time and money in another state.
We hunted deer on a private ranch over on the Snake River earlier in October. Both scored. But he's not hunting elk here anymore.
Just because some guys have cell phones and cameras and other fun toys doesn't mean squat when it comes to notching a tag. You can believe otherwise if you wish, but you first have to see the game yourself, get into a good shooting position, and do all of this before the elk moves on.
Four years ago over on the LT Murray, I had to let a 5-point bull walk right through my camp with a bunch of cows.
That wouldn't have happened back in the 70s or 80s.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 28, 2013, 11:12:13 AM
Post by: wafisherman on October 28, 2013, 11:25:11 AM
Yeah, real head scratcher there :chuckle:
Post by: snowpack on October 28, 2013, 11:31:12 AM
From the harvest reports it does show tag sales going up quite a bit, but also in the next column is showing that the number of elk hunters continues to drop. So more people buy tags but fewer and fewer are actually hunting. Wonder the reasoning for that? Applying for special permits/points only and not hunting if not drawn?I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Just a quick check on the WDFW website, in 1997, 68,492 hunters purchased tags, and harvested 4,919 Elk,
In 2012, 94, 590 hunters purchased tags, (an increase of 28,098 close to 40%) and harvested 9162 Elk, (an increase of 4,242 or over 50%)
The reason "the good old days" were just that, before it was so cool to be a hunter, I know I have introduced the sport to at least a dozen new hunters.
And every year I meet someone else interested, especially my children.
Read These forums, good stories, great success photos of beautiful Bulls every year...
Lots of Elk meat ending up in freezers...
Sure other states are looking attractive, but that is just because they have not been "Californicated" yet, Washington’s population grew from 4.1 million in 1980 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 8.8 million by 2040.
You think it is bad now, wait until then...
Post by: Dave Workman on October 28, 2013, 11:46:33 AM
From the harvest reports it does show tag sales going up quite a bit, but also in the next column is showing that the number of elk hunters continues to drop. So more people buy tags but fewer and fewer are actually hunting. Wonder the reasoning for that? Applying for special permits/points only and not hunting if not drawn?I agree with a lot of the article, but there's another side too. Part of the reason we are where we are now is because it was so good back then. The success and liberal seasons brought big crowds and reduced bull/cow ratios. Something had to be done to fix that, so management changed. Also, Natives hadn't started asserting their treaty rights, which is another factor modern managers have to deal with now.
On the west side, changing logging practices have affected the herds in areas that were once prime. Not to mention access to forest lands has greatly been reduced. There's a lot of uproar over here about the Wild Olympics campaign, but I'm all for it. I'd much rather see forest land as public land than as private land opened at the whim of a logging company. Now that I've hunted the National forests of Eastern Washington, I appreciate the access they provide.
Just a quick check on the WDFW website, in 1997, 68,492 hunters purchased tags, and harvested 4,919 Elk,
In 2012, 94, 590 hunters purchased tags, (an increase of 28,098 close to 40%) and harvested 9162 Elk, (an increase of 4,242 or over 50%)
The reason "the good old days" were just that, before it was so cool to be a hunter, I know I have introduced the sport to at least a dozen new hunters.
And every year I meet someone else interested, especially my children.
Read These forums, good stories, great success photos of beautiful Bulls every year...
Lots of Elk meat ending up in freezers...
Sure other states are looking attractive, but that is just because they have not been "Californicated" yet, Washington’s population grew from 4.1 million in 1980 to 6.7 million in 2010 and is expected to reach 8.8 million by 2040.
You think it is bad now, wait until then...
Did you pull this from a different thread?
Post by: snowpack on October 28, 2013, 11:50:43 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 28, 2013, 11:54:23 AM
nope, reply number 32.
It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from
Post by: Bob33 on October 28, 2013, 11:58:15 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/)nope, reply number 32.
It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from
Post by: snowpack on October 28, 2013, 12:07:13 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/) WDFW harvest reports. You can ferret out all kinds of info from the different years and species.nope, reply number 32.
It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from
shows a quick run up in hunters to around year 2000 or so then a decline in hunters back to about 1997 numbers.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2013, 12:59:21 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/) WDFW harvest reports. You can ferret out all kinds of info from the different years and species.nope, reply number 32.
It would be useful to provide a link to the WDFW site where the data came from
shows a quick run up in hunters to around year 2000 or so then a decline in hunters back to about 1997 numbers.
I wish it went back a lot further.
Post by: bobcat on October 28, 2013, 01:24:26 PM
Post by: baldopepper on October 28, 2013, 02:09:33 PM
1) Hunter mentalilty-in the good old days, as many refer to them, you actually had a lot more meat hunters. In the 60 and 70's a hunter who held out for a buck or a bull rather than shoot the first animal he saw, was considered a trophy hunter. The demand for quality hunts was minimal. No one would have ever dreamed of multi season tags because there were very few archery hunters and even less who hunted with muzzle loaders. We've evolved to a hunter mind set now where quality hunts are in demand and not just for modern rifle, but the archers want them and muzzleloaders also want them. Not only quality hunts from a trophy animal point of view, but also an isolated hunt with no or very few other hunters to compete with. Hence we've lost huge areas not only to private leases, but also to quality hunt draws on once open to everyone public ground. Sure, there are still meat hunters out there and many hunt just as a good excuse to get out, but the quality hunt demand has greatly influenced both our game departments and also large landowners who cash in the huge amounts some hunters are willing to pay for their quality hunts. In the good old days, game departments set out a 10 day or 2 week hunt for modern rifle and that covered 90% of all the hunters-obviously that wouldn't work now. Every group wants their time in the field, how do you spread this time out and keep everyone happy? You don't!
2) Technology - I tend to agree with those who talk of the advancements in equipment. Not just better guns, bows, bullets and optics but also the other gear. Geeze, just taking hunting boots as an example. When I first started a good pair of hunting boots were good, uninsulated leather boots that most guys wore to work in also. At best your feet froze at 30 degrees and at worst a couple of hours at 10 degrees and your toes were frost bit. If you wanted to hike into the back country for a 4-5 day hunt your gear alone would weigh 100 lbs because a sleeping bag to keep you warm at 32 degrees would alone weigh 20 pounds. Everything from camping gear to optics is so much better now that hunting efficiency is 10 times (in my opinion ) what it used to be. And on a larger scale our technologies have allowed us to open up huge tracts of land for logging and oil exploration etc. that even 30 years ago were roadless tracts and inaccessible to all but the most hardy. Now days with better cars and road systems hunters think nothing of driving 200-300 miles for just a one day hunt and when he gets there he unloads his ATV and goes in another 15-20 on roads that used to be impassable.
How do game departments keep up with all this, especially when you combine it with the demands of the new urban outdoors people who want to move out to traditional hunting grounds and build homes and mini ranches. People who think we should be introducing wolves into already stressed big game areas and let the predators do the natural game management thing.
I've hunted and fished all over the west and every state has the same complaints about game management and the same dream to return to the good old days. I'm glad I just get to be an armchair quarterback and not have to keep all these varied game experts happy.
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2013, 03:23:41 PM
Just a rebuttal to you stating that most dont use technology.
Not only have I never said that, I never suggested it either, get your facts strait.
Notice that i never once said anything about the affect on the seasons.
The seasons are a large part of the OP's discussion, mentioning technology as you have suggests it played a role in the changes the OP is discussing, which it didn't, and has no relevance in the discussion.
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 28, 2013, 06:50:55 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2013, 10:29:52 PM
you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 28, 2013, 11:35:47 PM
you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Technically, you said this " things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes."
I disagree with your assessment and I think Fowlweather does too. Anything that ups the success rate, from more hunters, to better gear, to better optics, to more information, to more roads, to more accurate shooting justifies season changes and restrictions if you want to have a sustaining herd base to hunt.
Post by: huntnnw on October 28, 2013, 11:50:01 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 28, 2013, 11:55:50 PM
I agree that advancements in gear can lead to increased success and is grounds for season restrictions, however it's not the case in this discussion.you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Technically, you said this " things have not changed "that dramatically" since 1985, certainly not enough for them to justify the season changes."
I disagree with your assessment and I think Fowlweather does too. Anything that ups the success rate, from more hunters, to better gear, to better optics, to more information, to more roads, to more accurate shooting justifies season changes and restrictions if you want to have a sustaining herd base to hunt.
The big season changes came before the most advanced gear used today. Of the similar gear used in '85, the difference's have not increased hunter success to the point of justifying season changes. Anything used today that was not widely used at the point of those changes is irrelivent in this discussion :twocents:
Post by: hub on October 28, 2013, 11:58:14 PM
Post by: huntnnw on October 29, 2013, 12:01:50 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 29, 2013, 06:55:12 AM
This entire thread is ridiculous. It's pretty obvious that in most parts of the state we do NOT have excessive numbers of game. It's also obvious there is no shortage of hunters. We don't need increased opportunity to kill more deer and elk. It's unbelievable to me that anyone would think that. If anything we need shorter seasons and a decrease in the number of deer and elk tags issued each year.
I have a suggestion, then.
You can make a personal contribution to the management scheme you outline.
Quit hunting in Washington. Put in for tags in Colorado. Or Wyoming. Or Montana. Washington's outdoors will be that much less cluttered, and you will experience firsthand the kind of "opportunity" you advocate for the rest of us.
Where does it say that hunters, who pay the freight for wildlife management in this state, shouldn't expect — nay, DEMAND — more and better opportunity?
Post by: bobcat on October 29, 2013, 07:02:22 AM
If we hunters had longer seasons at better times, and were able to kill more deer and elk each year, how long would that last?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: huntnphool on October 29, 2013, 08:42:15 AM
Dave, we can demand "more and better opportunity" but we will never get it until there are more animals to hunt, period.On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?
If we hunters had longer seasons at better times, and were able to kill more deer and elk each year, how long would that last?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: LndShrk on October 29, 2013, 09:02:49 AM
Everything was better in the 80's
Music, the Mullet, Chicks..
Didn't have yuppies in Subaru's chasing birds around the woods.
A trail was something we made and not something we followed.
The Gipper was president.
Dave tell me this isn't Brian in the 80's :chuckle:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.partyontheright.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2F09%2Frob-north-obama-needs-to-fear-the-mullet%2Ftimthumb-1.png&hash=259dfb116eb1cefc4d0845425f342f3d52e66d8b)
Post by: huntnphool on October 29, 2013, 09:04:58 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 29, 2013, 09:51:31 AM
Oh Brian is just going through a mid life crisis. :chuckle: :chuckle:
Dave tell me this isn't Brian in the 80's :chuckle:
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.partyontheright.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F05%2F09%2Frob-north-obama-needs-to-fear-the-mullet%2Ftimthumb-1.png&hash=259dfb116eb1cefc4d0845425f342f3d52e66d8b)
No, I think that's "bobcat"
:chuckle: ;) :chuckle:
Post by: Dave Workman on October 29, 2013, 11:14:03 AM
Dave, we can demand "more and better opportunity" but we will never get it until there are more animals to hunt, period.
If we hunters had longer seasons at better times, and were able to kill more deer and elk each year, how long would that last?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Evidently, we're there.
NEWS RELEASE
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
October 24, 2013
Contact: Dave Ware, (360) 902-2509
Elk hunting prospects good statewide,
2012 harvest best in years
OLYMPIA – After a strong harvest in 2012, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) game managers are again forecasting good elk hunting opportunities statewide when the 2013 modern-firearm general season opens Saturday (Oct. 26).
Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997.
“Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
Ware said the last few years have been good statewide for calf recruitment and adult survival, adding that all of the state’s major herds are at or above population management objectives. As such, he predicts good opportunities throughout Washington’s elk country.
“News across the state is pretty good, especially for Eastern Washington elk tag holders,” said Ware. “The Yakima Elk Herd’s productivity began declining several years ago, so we backed off our antlerless tags. Productivity has since increased, and, based on last year’s calf survival, I think hunters can expect to see good numbers of spikes in 2013.”
News is similar in the Blue Mountains, if not better.
“Our surveys indicate we’re seeing 40 percent survival on spike elk in the Blues, which is excellent,” said Ware. “A more typical number we expect to see is 20 percent post-hunt survival. This means there are plenty of elk escaping hunters, due in part to steep terrain. It looks like we should have very good numbers of spike bulls available in the Blue Mountains again this year.”
The Colockum Elk Herd is also above WDFW’s management objective and increasing. That should mean increased antlerless tag opportunities in the future, especially with the temporary decline in habitat conditions resulting from this summer’s catastrophic wildfires that swept across the Colockum and L.T. Murray wildlife areas, as well as surrounding lands.
“The effects of the fire shouldn’t affect the 2013 season much,” said Ware. “The new, green grass growing on burned landscapes is like candy to elk, so hunters might want to look in and around burned areas close to timbered cover. As always, scouting is important, and so is the ability to adapt to different access options and/or elk distribution and behavior caused by fires and post-fire flooding. Hunters should also be mindful of the true-spike regulation in place in these GMUs.”
Ware also mentioned the Selkirk Elk Herd, which is comprised of many small bands of elk spread out throughout the state’s northeastern corner. Numbers appear to be stable, said Ware, but scouting is especially key to success in this part of the state due to vast habitat and small, roaming bands of elk.
“Hunter success has held strong over the last several years in Northeast Washington,” Ware said.
In Western Washington, the St. Helens Elk Herd continues to be the state’s largest, despite hoof disease affecting an undetermined minority of the total population.
“Hunters should be aware that if they follow basic techniques for caring for game, animals infected with hoof disease appear to pose no threat to human health based on all of those examined so far,” said Ware.
WDFW is investigating potential causes and solutions to address elk hoof disease in Southwest Washington and is asking hunters to report any hoof deformities they encounter via the department’s website. http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/health/hoof_disease/.)
“Elk numbers remain very high, and we expect good hunter success,” said Ware. “With some private timber lands going into fee access, it will become increasingly important to plan ahead, scout, and develop alternatives going forward. Still, there is plenty of access available.”
Ware said WDFW is continuing to seek a range of solutions to maintain free or inexpensive access on private timberlands in Western Washington.
Meanwhile, Southwestern Washington’s Willapa Hills Elk Herd, is at objective and should offer good opportunities for three-point or better Roosevelt elk bulls, Ware said. Some hunters may be frustrated by a lack of drive-in access in places, but Ware said those willing to walk behind closed gates – where legal – stand the best chances of encountering and harvesting elk.
“There’s something about the magic number two miles behind a closed gate to make elk feel secure,” said Ware.
He extends this same advice to hunters pursuing three-point or better Roosevelt elk bulls from the Olympic Herd, whose population is also stable and at objective.
“The lower elevations receive a lot of pressure,” Ware said. “Older age-class bulls are typically found in higher elevation roadless areas or two or more miles behind closed gates where they feel safe.”
Ware reminds hunters of WDFW’s Private Lands Hunting Access Program (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/hunting_access/private_lands/)), as well as the agency’s new GoHunt! mapping feature (http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/gohunt/ (http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/gohunt/)), which includes layers displaying public and private lands, game-management units, and other useful information.
Along with securing legal access, hunters are advised to make safety their top priority.
“Statistics show that hunting is a very safe sport, especially compared to most other outdoor activities,” Ware said. “Hunters are trained to make sure they have a safe shot, and non-hunters can help ensure their safety by making themselves visible in the field.”
All hunters using modern firearms – or in areas open to hunting with modern firearms – are required to wear hunter-orange clothing as specified by state law. Ware suggests hikers, mushroom pickers and others in areas open to hunting wear bright, colorful clothing to maximize their visibility, as well.
Fire danger has mostly subsided for the year, but caution with campfires is always important. The state’s only remaining campfire ban remains in effect through Oct. 31 at the Columbia Basin Wildlife Area in Eastern Washington’s Grant and Adams counties.
Ware reminds hunters of WDFW’s third-annual 2014 Big Game Regulations Pamphlet Contest. This year’s theme is hunting camps, and the winning photo submitted will adorn the cover of 475,000 pamphlets next year. Photos must be submitted via the WDFW website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/sharephotos/contest.html. (http://wdfw.wa.gov/sharephotos/contest.html.)
“Please remember to bring a camera to snap a few quality photos of your elk camp,” said Ware. “Even if you don’t win the contest, pictures of camp memories are a precious commodity to most of us who hunt.”
Before heading out into the field, hunters should always double check the Big Game Hunting pamphlet for details.
YEP: We want to emphasize camping with guns for next hunting season.
Post by: Killmore on October 29, 2013, 11:25:13 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on October 29, 2013, 11:31:19 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on October 29, 2013, 11:43:52 AM
As the state continues to make sure Wa. increases the wolf population hunting oppurtunity will sufer further. Because this state is anti hunting the really good hunting for avid hunters will never be again.
Evidently you have a disconnect from the reality of what is happening since wolves have expanded in Washington.
According to what Dave Workman posted............
"“ Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997. Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
And according to huntnphool ...........
"On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?"
Evidently the Greenie plan to ruin hunting with wolves is not working properly. In fact it seems to be backfiring. The herds are growing!
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 29, 2013, 12:00:21 PM
Post by: snowpack on October 29, 2013, 12:06:45 PM
The wolves aren't yet at 'operating capacity'. When there's 'confirmed' 15 breeding pairs, we'll see what the herds look like. The WDFW wolf plan predicts that wolves will take a percentage that is equal to state hunters.As the state continues to make sure Wa. increases the wolf population hunting oppurtunity will sufer further. Because this state is anti hunting the really good hunting for avid hunters will never be again.
Evidently you have a disconnect from the reality of what is happening since wolves have expanded in Washington.
According to what Dave Workman posted............
"“ Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997. Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
And according to huntnphool ...........
"On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?"
Evidently the Greenie plan to ruin hunting with wolves is not working properly. In fact it seems to be backfiring. The herds are growing!
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 29, 2013, 12:23:00 PM
you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Ok genius, i cant help you be smart. Again, no need to get upset and start calling names like a 3rd grader. Its ok for people to disagree with you. Its normal. Im not the only one who took what you said for the meaning that it represented.
Post by: huntnphool on October 29, 2013, 12:50:03 PM
I don't much care how you take what I say, just make sure that when you quote someone, you quote what they actually said and not make things up.you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Ok genius, i cant help you be smart. Again, no need to get upset and start calling names like a 3rd grader. Its ok for people to disagree with you. Its normal. Im not the only one who took what you said for the meaning that it represented.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 29, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
The wolves aren't yet at 'operating capacity'. When there's 'confirmed' 15 breeding pairs, we'll see what the herds look like. The WDFW wolf plan predicts that wolves will take a percentage that is equal to state hunters.As the state continues to make sure Wa. increases the wolf population hunting oppurtunity will sufer further. Because this state is anti hunting the really good hunting for avid hunters will never be again.
Evidently you have a disconnect from the reality of what is happening since wolves have expanded in Washington.
According to what Dave Workman posted............
"“ Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997. Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
And according to huntnphool ...........
"On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?"
Evidently the Greenie plan to ruin hunting with wolves is not working properly. In fact it seems to be backfiring. The herds are growing!
Maybe you mean carrying capacity?
Post by: Fowlweather25 on October 29, 2013, 03:07:55 PM
I don't much care how you take what I say, just make sure that when you quote someone, you quote what they actually said and not make things up.you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Ok genius, i cant help you be smart. Again, no need to get upset and start calling names like a 3rd grader. Its ok for people to disagree with you. Its normal. Im not the only one who took what you said for the meaning that it represented.
Ok big guy! :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on October 29, 2013, 09:16:32 PM
Thank youI don't much care how you take what I say, just make sure that when you quote someone, you quote what they actually said and not make things up.you said it isnt commonly used in todays hunting practices.Ok genius, that's twice now. How about you show everyone where I said that, once again I suggest you get your facts strait.
Ok genius, i cant help you be smart. Again, no need to get upset and start calling names like a 3rd grader. Its ok for people to disagree with you. Its normal. Im not the only one who took what you said for the meaning that it represented.
Ok big guy! :tup:
Post by: KFhunter on October 29, 2013, 09:27:22 PM
As the state continues to make sure Wa. increases the wolf population hunting oppurtunity will sufer further. Because this state is anti hunting the really good hunting for avid hunters will never be again.
Evidently you have a disconnect from the reality of what is happening since wolves have expanded in Washington.
According to what Dave Workman posted............
"“ Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997. Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
And according to huntnphool ...........
"On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?"
Evidently the Greenie plan to ruin hunting with wolves is not working properly. In fact it seems to be backfiring. The herds are growing!
Just like in Idaho - people go there and see Elk all over the place or have a great hunting season. It's just the Elk not being able to retreat to the deep dark holes and stay there safely tucked away from 99% of hunters as the wolves push them back out into the open where people can see them and get a crack at them. They're between a rock and a hard place.
hypothetical to illustrate my point:
Remove all the wolves *poof* and disperse the Elk into their traditional habitat THEN go hunt them and then see how you do.
Post by: Bob33 on October 29, 2013, 09:47:04 PM
Looking at this by region, wolves are mostly concentrated in the NE. How is that deer population doing up there?
Since the largest elk herd in the state is in the Selkirks and their decline hasn't altered total state elk population data, the wolves must be ok after all. ;)
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2013, 09:53:46 PM
I am confused by your statements. Are you suggesting that wolves have made elk hunting easier/better in Idaho?
Just like in Idaho - people go there and see Elk all over the place or have a great hunting season. It's just the Elk not being able to retreat to the deep dark holes and stay there safely tucked away from 99% of hunters as the wolves push them back out into the open where people can see them and get a crack at them. They're between a rock and a hard place.
hypothetical to illustrate my point:
Remove all the wolves *poof* and disperse the Elk into their traditional habitat THEN go hunt them and then see how you do.
Post by: JLS on October 29, 2013, 09:55:45 PM
As the state continues to make sure Wa. increases the wolf population hunting oppurtunity will sufer further. Because this state is anti hunting the really good hunting for avid hunters will never be again.
Evidently you have a disconnect from the reality of what is happening since wolves have expanded in Washington.
According to what Dave Workman posted............
"“ Dave Ware, game manager for WDFW, said last year’s elk harvest was the best since at least 1997. Our elk harvest has consistently been between roughly 7,000 and 8,800 animals,” said Ware. “But last year, Washington hunters took 9,162 elk, both bulls and cows. It was definitely our best season since at least 1997 when we moved to our current and more reliable method for determining harvest numbers.”
And according to huntnphool ...........
"On the East side we have the deer numbers back and less hunters than when they implemented the shorter seasons, why have we not had the seasons re adjusted?"
Evidently the Greenie plan to ruin hunting with wolves is not working properly. In fact it seems to be backfiring. The herds are growing!
Just like in Idaho - people go there and see Elk all over the place or have a great hunting season. It's just the Elk not being able to retreat to the deep dark holes and stay there safely tucked away from 99% of hunters as the wolves push them back out into the open where people can see them and get a crack at them. They're between a rock and a hard place.
hypothetical to illustrate my point:
Remove all the wolves *poof* and disperse the Elk into their traditional habitat THEN go hunt them and then see how you do.
The elk have resorted to standing in the armored bus stop shelters that Idaho children rely on so they don't get ate :)
Having hunted in Idaho and Montana, this is quite a stretch in my humble opinion.
Post by: snowpack on October 29, 2013, 10:06:36 PM
I've heard this too. That many of the elk have been driven from the backcountry into safer areas which are more accessible to humans, so in the short term the hunter successes go up. Some of the outfitters that operated (since only about half are left now) in the deeper wildernesses of MT/ID claimed that the herds moved on and they weren't able to get to nearly the numbers as before wolves.I am confused by your statements. Are you suggesting that wolves have made elk hunting easier/better in Idaho?
Just like in Idaho - people go there and see Elk all over the place or have a great hunting season. It's just the Elk not being able to retreat to the deep dark holes and stay there safely tucked away from 99% of hunters as the wolves push them back out into the open where people can see them and get a crack at them. They're between a rock and a hard place.
hypothetical to illustrate my point:
Remove all the wolves *poof* and disperse the Elk into their traditional habitat THEN go hunt them and then see how you do.
When the pioneers first came through the areas during westward expansion, it was noted that elk were mainly a plains/meadows animal. Predators kept them from spending too much time in the forests, and Indians weren't much of a threat before they began to acquire guns and horses so the plains/meadows were safe.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 29, 2013, 10:07:50 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: JLS: We should start $elling these in rural Idaho...make a killing! :chuckle:
The elk have resorted to standing in the armored bus stop shelters that Idaho children rely on so they don't get ate :)
Post by: JLS on October 29, 2013, 10:10:16 PM
I've heard this too. That many of the elk have been driven from the backcountry into safer areas which are more accessible to humans, so in the short term the hunter successes go up.
I still see as many, if not more elk in the remote areas that I hunt. They must not have gotten the memo to head for the barnyards and parking lots.
Post by: JLS on October 29, 2013, 10:11:18 PM
:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: JLS: We should start $elling these in rural Idaho...make a killing! :chuckle:
The elk have resorted to standing in the armored bus stop shelters that Idaho children rely on so they don't get ate :)
Bring your cutting torch and welder and I'll get the beer. :)
Post by: Dave Workman on October 30, 2013, 05:03:12 PM
We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho.
Indeed we're talking Washington GAME management
Post by: JLS on October 30, 2013, 05:15:14 PM
As usual, the wise guys have tried to re-direct the thread.
We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho.
Indeed we're talking Washington GAME management
Indeed we are, and I expressed my thoughts on how agriculture drastically limits elk opportunity in Washington. Look at the Skagit debacle. One damage claim was 25K bucks. Whether or not the complainant wins, we live in a state where DFW is forced to manage elk herds with a large amount of financial liability and winter range that is fragmented beyond belief.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 30, 2013, 05:35:38 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 30, 2013, 06:31:25 PM
As usual, the wise guys have tried to re-direct the thread.
We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho.
Indeed we're talking Washington GAME management
Indeed we are, and I expressed my thoughts on how agriculture drastically limits elk opportunity in Washington. Look at the Skagit debacle. One damage claim was 25K bucks. Whether or not the complainant wins, we live in a state where DFW is forced to manage elk herds with a large amount of financial liability and winter range that is fragmented beyond belief.
What would be your solution to this?
True, damage claims roll in because of elk. look at that growing herd in the Snoqualmie Valley between North Bend and Snoqualmie. They raise hell with the local nurseries and golf course.
One might think that turning loose some bowhunters or guys who have purchased suppressors for their rifles to target those elk and push them back up onto the hillsides where other hunters can go after them would be one solution.
As is, the elk are merely there for the touristas to goggle at, leaving the impression that game management is just peachy and very productive.
Post by: Special T on October 30, 2013, 06:37:17 PM
Post by: RG on October 30, 2013, 07:21:46 PM
Workman's original point is spot on. There are few if any real outdoorsmen in WDFW. They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent. They wouldn't know a diamond hitch from a square knot. It's really too bad.
Post by: RG on October 30, 2013, 08:01:49 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on October 30, 2013, 08:19:37 PM
They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent.Not sure what you mean by this but I can assure you they are not mutually exclusive traits.
Post by: JLS on October 30, 2013, 08:27:37 PM
As usual, the wise guys have tried to re-direct the thread.
We're talking Washington elk, not Idaho.
Indeed we're talking Washington GAME management
Indeed we are, and I expressed my thoughts on how agriculture drastically limits elk opportunity in Washington. Look at the Skagit debacle. One damage claim was 25K bucks. Whether or not the complainant wins, we live in a state where DFW is forced to manage elk herds with a large amount of financial liability and winter range that is fragmented beyond belief.
What would be your solution to this?
True, damage claims roll in because of elk. look at that growing herd in the Snoqualmie Valley between North Bend and Snoqualmie. They raise hell with the local nurseries and golf course.
One might think that turning loose some bowhunters or guys who have purchased suppressors for their rifles to target those elk and push them back up onto the hillsides where other hunters can go after them would be one solution.
As is, the elk are merely there for the touristas to goggle at, leaving the impression that game management is just peachy and very productive.
If I had the answer to this question I would probably have multiple states calling me to hire me to run their fish and game department.
The boat is so far downstream now I think it'd be pretty tough to change it's course. Too much precedent has been set for expensive damage claims, too much winter range has become fruit orchards, vineyards, or winter wheat, valley floors have become golf courses, tree farms, berry farms, and flower farms, highways and interstates bissect travel corridors, and so on.
Where there are liberal hunting seasons, even hunters complain. Look at the nonsense you read on here about how hard the St Helens elk arer hunted and "harrassed". BFD. There are elk herds in Montana that are hunted for four months straight and they survive.
I am all for having as liberal hunting seasons as the resource will tolerate. Unfortunately in certain areas such as the Skagit, hunters have shown what they are really all about and pretty much crapped in their own bed so to speak. How do you remedy this? Even Master Hunters have shown themselves to not be completely trustworth, which is to be expected because they are human.
I don't envy DFW one bit with the mess in the Skagit. In my mind, the optimal solution for elk damage is to issue permits and let hunters shoot them. I've gotten to participate in these types of hunts and I really enjoyed them. However, I'm also not so naive as to think that hunters can come with a very hefty price tag in terms of negative PR.
I digress however, for my initial stance in that agricultural (including hobby farms) interests are and will be the biggest limiting factor in how many elk can inhabit Washington. It's a culture thing here to whine about animals. Heaven forbid you see 50 mule deer in your winter wheat. Even worse, see 50 elk out there. There is very little tolerance for wildlife and it's quite sad to see.
Post by: RG on October 30, 2013, 08:56:56 PM
They are absolutely not mutually exclusive. It takes training and hands on experience to be any kind of expert. I'm pretty old school sometimes but I think the best person to manage something is a person who has done it themselves enough to be skilled at it. Our state has a lot more issues than that though. Values have changed over the decades and it won't go back. I know that I will find hunting experiences I can really enjoy and value if I go somewhere else or draw the permit here. It's too bad and I wish my grandsons had been here to hunt and fish in the 60's and 70's. when they are old enough Ill take them to Idaho with the horses and see if we can get them a nice bull. It's not all bad and I don't mean to sound like it is. It's not the same though and, as a hunter, I've seen a lot of places where I prefer to hunt.They are mostly book smart biologists who have never skinned and packed an elk or slept for weeks in a wall tent.Not sure what you mean by this but I can assure you they are not mutually exclusive traits.
Post by: idahohuntr on October 30, 2013, 09:23:24 PM
when they are old enough Ill take them to Idaho with the horses and see if we can get them a nice bull. It's not all bad and I don't mean to sound like it is. It's not the same though and, as a hunter, I've seen a lot of places where I prefer to hunt.:tup: Probably the best thing you can do to help younger generations see how things could/should be...hunting with my grandpa is something I will cherish forever.
Post by: RG on October 30, 2013, 09:30:59 PM
Post by: hub on October 31, 2013, 12:19:06 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 31, 2013, 06:44:05 AM
Ok no doubt there is habitat loss in Washington, but there are also some other factors at work on our herds because you can visit many remaining winter ranges that have very few animals on them in the winter. We do not even have enough deer to utilize the remaining winter range so there must be other factors reducing our deer herds.
What Has Really Changed In Deer/Elk Mortality?
According to WDFW documentation since 1997 hunter harvest has averaged from 7000 to 9000 elk annually and 30,000 to 40,000 deer annually. This hunter harvest is not significantly different than the previous couple decades. So what else is changing, why do we all think there are fewer deer?
Overall Predator Numbers!
The bottom line is that coyotes, cougar, bear, and wolves eat deer and elk. WDFW has cut back cougar seasons and purposefully expanded, in fact nearly doubled cougar populations in Washington and WDFW is now working toward fulfilling the most liberal wolf plan of any western state. Additionally, trapping and hunting of coyotes has been drastically reduced due to trapping bans and decreased fur markets. Once wolves multiply and decimate certain elk herds as they have historically done in ID/MT/WY then this conversation will arise again and certain people will blame everything except the predators they are in love with. Only people who are capable of performing elementary school math will be able to decipher the true reason for the decline in the herds.
Cougar Predation
Cougar are my favorite animal to hunt so I would never want to see them eliminated, but we have too many cougar and no matter what some people may try to say that cougar do not impact herds, they are either lieing or sadly uninformed. Numerous studies have shown that one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year. In areas with more elk than deer cougar tend to make elk their diet instead of deer.
A NE Washington Cougar study found that the cougar annual kill rate on deer was from 7 days to 11 days.
Cougars in NE Washington
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf (http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf)
Quote
Across the study area and within The Wedge, cougars selected for mule deer over white-tailed deer during the year. When examined seasonally, cougars strongly selected for mule deer during the summer but not during the winter, and in no season or location did they select for white-tailed deer. The annual kill rate of 7 days for cougars falls within the range of 7 to 11 days reported by other investigators (Hornocker 1970, Beier et al. 1995, and Murphy 1998). The interval may be at the low end because 15 of the 22 intervals were from female cougars with kittens, which typically show a higher kill rate than single adults (Murphy 1998). Only 2 intervals were from a male cougar (8 and 11
days). We found no differences in habitat characteristics between mule deer and whitetailed deer kill sites.
WA Cougar Population and Impacts On Herds
WDFW said at the Colville Wolf Meeting there are likely 3500 to 4000 cougar in Washington (as compared to 2000 estimated population a few decades ago). Therefore according to these statistics from a NE WA cougar study the 1500 to 2000 additional cougar WDFW has in WA are eating anywhere from 49,772 to 104,285 more deer (or substituting elk) than cougar ate when the cougar population was estimated at 2000 animals a few decades ago.
Coyotes Lead Way in Deer Deaths
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html)
I think most people will agree that the coyote population has increased. According to studies that are underway in several Midwest and eastern states, coyotes have a significant impact on deer numbers.
Quote
In all, 57 adult deer and 44 fawns have been captured and fitted with tracking devices.
The data are from Jan. 1, 2009 through Aug. 31, 2010. Though preliminary, they are showing some very interesting results.
Coyotes in the study area were responsible for 13 fawn mortalities, followed by bobcat (9), unknown predator (5), abandonment (4), unknown agent (3), black bear (2), vehicle collision (2), wolf (2) and bald eagle (1).
Among adult and yearling female deer, coyote killed 6, followed by wolf (3), black bear (2), drowning (2), birthing complications (1), vehicle collision (1) and unknown predator (1).
Bear predation on Elk in Idaho
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf (http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf)
Quote
During 1973 to 1975, neonatal calf survival from birth to October 1 averaged 37.5 percent. Predation by black bears was the primary proximate cause of mortality (Table 3). In 1976, 75 black bears were removed from the study area. Calf survival increased to 67 percent, then approximated preremovallevels 2 years later. Calf-to-cow ratios (an index of recruitment) from aerial surveys showed a similar pattern (Schlegel 1986). Concurrently, the trend in calf-to-cow ratios was similar in surrounding GMUs, where the bear population was not reduced, compromising interpretation of these results (Schlegel 1986). Nevertheless, these data suggest that predation by black bears is additive and can be a significant factor limiting elk recruitment and population growth.
Wolf Impacts on Elk/Deer
I know we have some wolf lovers on the forum but they cannot refute the statistics provided by other western states and published in the WA Wolf Plan. Unless my memory is mistaken, the plan states that each wolf kills an average of 44 deer or 17 elk per year. Wolf impacts have not been felt in most areas of Washington yet because we have not reached our population objective. However, simple math and WDFW wolf plan statistics tell us that 15 breeding pairs which translates to roughly 150 wolves on the ground will consume 2550 elk or 6600 deer per year. That sounds like wolves might possibly fit in if hunters give up a few deer and elk from our annual harvest. However, Idaho's wolf plan called for 10 breeding pairs and they ended up with nearly 800 documented wolves. If Washington's wolf plan is as overly successful as Idaho then our 15 breeding pairs may translate into as many as 1200 wolves that will eat 20,400 elk or 52,800 deer per year.
What's In Store In The Future
I have provided the statistics on predation, they are facts not speculation. How WDFW continues to manage predators will determine the future of our herds. If WDFW continues to increase predator numbers, the increased cougar, bear, coyote, and wolf numbers are statistically bound to have an effect on hunting in Washington.
It doesn't matter how much summer range or winter range you have, if the animals are being eaten the summer range and winter range will not get fully utilized. Herds will decline regardless of how much blame biologists and the WDFW try to pin on every other factor. Perhaps some elk herds have increased in the last decade but deer are declining and when there are no deer the predators will be forced to eat elk so the elk numbers will decline if predator numbers continue to increase. :twocents:
Post by: Dave Workman on October 31, 2013, 07:31:36 AM
Overall Predator Numbers!
The bottom line is that coyotes, cougar, bear, and wolves eat deer and elk. WDFW has cut back cougar seasons and purposefully expanded, in fact nearly doubled cougar populations in Washington and WDFW is now working toward fulfilling the most liberal wolf plan of any western state. Additionally, trapping and hunting of coyotes has been drastically reduced due to trapping bans and decreased fur markets. Once wolves multiply and decimate certain elk herds as they have historically done in ID/MT/WY then this conversation will arise again and certain people will blame everything except the predators they are in love with. Only people who are capable of performing elementary school math will be able to decipher the true reason for the decline in the herds.
Cougar Predation
Cougar are my favorite animal to hunt so I would never want to see them eliminated, but we have too many cougar and no matter what some people may try to say that cougar do not impact herds, they are either lieing or sadly uninformed. Numerous studies have shown that one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year. In areas with more elk than deer cougar tend to make elk their diet instead of deer.
A NE Washington Cougar study found that the cougar annual kill rate on deer was from 7 days to 11 days.
Cougars in NE Washington
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf (http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf)QuoteAcross the study area and within The Wedge, cougars selected for mule deer over white-tailed deer during the year. When examined seasonally, cougars strongly selected for mule deer during the summer but not during the winter, and in no season or location did they select for white-tailed deer. The annual kill rate of 7 days for cougars falls within the range of 7 to 11 days reported by other investigators (Hornocker 1970, Beier et al. 1995, and Murphy 1998). The interval may be at the low end because 15 of the 22 intervals were from female cougars with kittens, which typically show a higher kill rate than single adults (Murphy 1998). Only 2 intervals were from a male cougar (8 and 11
days). We found no differences in habitat characteristics between mule deer and whitetailed deer kill sites.
WA Cougar Population and Impacts On Herds
WDFW said at the Colville Wolf Meeting there are likely 3500 to 4000 cougar in Washington (as compared to 2000 estimated population a few decades ago). Therefore according to these statistics from a NE WA cougar study the 1500 to 2000 additional cougar WDFW has in WA are eating anywhere from 49,772 to 104,285 more deer (or substituting elk) than cougar ate when the cougar population was estimated at 2000 animals a few decades ago.
Coyotes Lead Way in Deer Deaths
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html)
I think most people will agree that the coyote population has increased. According to studies that are underway in several Midwest and eastern states, coyotes have a significant impact on deer numbers.QuoteIn all, 57 adult deer and 44 fawns have been captured and fitted with tracking devices.
The data are from Jan. 1, 2009 through Aug. 31, 2010. Though preliminary, they are showing some very interesting results.
Coyotes in the study area were responsible for 13 fawn mortalities, followed by bobcat (9), unknown predator (5), abandonment (4), unknown agent (3), black bear (2), vehicle collision (2), wolf (2) and bald eagle (1).
Among adult and yearling female deer, coyote killed 6, followed by wolf (3), black bear (2), drowning (2), birthing complications (1), vehicle collision (1) and unknown predator (1).
Bear predation on Elk in Idaho
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf (http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf)QuoteDuring 1973 to 1975, neonatal calf survival from birth to October 1 averaged 37.5 percent. Predation by black bears was the primary proximate cause of mortality (Table 3). In 1976, 75 black bears were removed from the study area. Calf survival increased to 67 percent, then approximated preremovallevels 2 years later. Calf-to-cow ratios (an index of recruitment) from aerial surveys showed a similar pattern (Schlegel 1986). Concurrently, the trend in calf-to-cow ratios was similar in surrounding GMUs, where the bear population was not reduced, compromising interpretation of these results (Schlegel 1986). Nevertheless, these data suggest that predation by black bears is additive and can be a significant factor limiting elk recruitment and population growth.
Wolf Impacts on Elk/Deer
I know we have some wolf lovers on the forum but they cannot refute the statistics provided by other western states and published in the WA Wolf Plan. Unless my memory is mistaken, the plan states that each wolf kills an average of 44 deer or 17 elk per year. Wolf impacts have not been felt in most areas of Washington yet because we have not reached our population objective. However, simple math and WDFW wolf plan statistics tell us that 15 breeding pairs which translates to roughly 150 wolves on the ground will consume 2550 elk or 6600 deer per year. That sounds like wolves might possibly fit in if hunters give up a few deer and elk from our annual harvest. However, Idaho's wolf plan called for 10 breeding pairs and they ended up with nearly 800 documented wolves. If Washington's wolf plan is as overly successful as Idaho then our 15 breeding pairs may translate into as many as 1200 wolves that will eat 20,400 elk or 52,800 deer per year.
What's In Store In The Future
I have provided the statistics on predation, they are facts not speculation. How WDFW continues to manage predators will determine the future of our herds. If WDFW continues to increase predator numbers, the increased cougar, bear, coyote, and wolf numbers are statistically bound to have an effect on hunting in Washington.
It doesn't matter how much summer range or winter range you have, if the animals are being eaten the summer range and winter range will not get fully utilized. Herds will decline regardless of how much blame biologists and the WDFW try to pin on every other factor. Perhaps some elk herds have increased in the last decade but deer are declining and when there are no deer the predators will be forced to eat elk so the elk numbers will decline if predator numbers continue to increase. :twocents:
Bearpaw:
There is another way to look at this, provided the theory is correct.
The season cutbacks, the opportunity reductions; the WDFW may not be managing wildlife so much as it is managing for predation under your scenario. If the agency truly is bent on increasing predator populations, then it would stand to reason that the agency would be managing for minimum harvest by hunters in order to reduce competition, for the benefit of all the predator populations (i.e. wolves, cougars, bears and coyotes), wouldn't it?
My license money isn't supposed to be paying for breakfast, lunch and dinner for cougars and wolves. it's supposed to be paying for GAME / wildlife preservation and enhancement, habitat improvement and access.
In 1949, then Game Director Don W. Clarke wrote in a message to sportsmen, published in that year's Sportsmen's Guide, "The Game Department's goal today is to produce the maximum amount of fish and game for sportsmen to harvest, and yet to insure the perpetuation of our wildlife resource for future generations."
He further noted, "Over 90,000 acres of game ranges and public hunting and fishing areas are managed by the department for the protection and promulgation of big game, upland birds, migratory waterfowl and game fish."
Clarke's philosophy, if you and others are correct, has been replaced by a more narrowly-focused campaign to turn Washington into a utopia for tree huggers and predator lovers, with hunters footing the grocery and access bill.
I speak for nobody but me, and I especially don't speak for anybody who thinks we need fewer hunters, fewer tags, shorter seasons and "less is the new more."
Post by: RG on October 31, 2013, 07:32:43 AM
Post by: baldopepper on October 31, 2013, 08:05:12 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 31, 2013, 08:23:48 AM
I think you miss the point that to many of these "special interest groups" hunters are seen as a special interest group. We, as hunters, have done a terrible job of banding together to actually become an influential special interest group. With the exception of a few organizations (RMEF, DU, NWTF) we really have, to my knowledge, no lobbying group that combats some of the better organized special interest groups. The politics of today really dictate that the squeaky wheel (maybe it's the best paying wheel) gets the grease. 30 years ago PETA was no factor, the Sahara club only worried about whales, the Audubon society was a bunch of old ladies with binoculars and there weren't 1/10th of the various conservation groups there are now. (I can't remember any wolf discussions back in the 70's and eighties) Game departments across the west are bombarded with demands from every direction and the direction that comes with the most votes and most money is going to get the most attention. Until we as hunters can band together and quit fighting amongst ourselves (heck, even on this forum even mildly controversial topics cant seem to be civily discussed) and form a formidable "special interest group" we are going to continue to get the short end of the stick.
Thirty years ago, Tom Nelson, me and a handful of others launched the Sportsmen's Rights Coalition, and actually put more than 1,000 angry hunters and anglers on the capitol steps...twice.
But one thing about Resource Allocation: It divides hunter and pits user/interest groups against one another for a shrinking piece of the resource and opportunity pie.
Post by: baldopepper on October 31, 2013, 08:58:57 AM
Post by: snowpack on October 31, 2013, 09:49:10 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/mission_goals.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/mission_goals.html)
Clarke's philosophy, if you and others are correct, has been replaced by a more narrowly-focused campaign to turn Washington into a utopia for tree huggers and predator lovers, with hunters footing the grocery and access bill.
'back then' the animals were managed to support people, now the people are managed to support the animals.
Post by: hub on October 31, 2013, 12:25:03 PM
Post by: bobcat on October 31, 2013, 12:53:17 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on October 31, 2013, 05:33:16 PM
Hub, wow that's a new one to me. I see that as a non-issue. I think that's the problem- people making things into issues when they're not.
The REAL problem is that you see it as a "non-issue."
Anything that creates friction between hunters so that they take their eyes off the ball is an issue, and part of the problem, that being a divided hunting fraternity that is competing against one another rather than joined together to focus their energies on the agency and its management scheme.
Baldopepper is also onto something: that anti-hunters and anti-gunners are soul mates.
Post by: hub on November 01, 2013, 12:00:23 AM
Post by: csaaphill on November 01, 2013, 12:46:08 AM
Habitat LossJust wanted to bring this back on track myself. This kind of thing very well could be the culprit. Now I know warm sunny days have contributed to not seeing much in the name of elk this year; it has rained a couple of days this elk season. I haven't seen mush sign at all. Went to Pomeroy last Sunday walked down over the hill and seen maybe one small set of Cow elk tracks. Seen just the other day on a long hike one pile of Elk droppings fresh, but not too since it was frosty that morning, and still had frost on it. maybe should of still followed it but didn't so sue me lol. My point is Last year only seen one lone cow elk this year nothing except some sign that wasn't that fresh. Did see one heck of a pile of what looked like wolf dung though. Meaning huge bleeping pile not this small two three logs but 6-8 inch long and 10-12 individual logs in one pile so wolf sign then? or just two or three coyotes in one spot?
Ok no doubt there is habitat loss in Washington, but there are also some other factors at work on our herds because you can visit many remaining winter ranges that have very few animals on them in the winter. We do not even have enough deer to utilize the remaining winter range so there must be other factors reducing our deer herds.
What Has Really Changed In Deer/Elk Mortality?
According to WDFW documentation since 1997 hunter harvest has averaged from 7000 to 9000 elk annually and 30,000 to 40,000 deer annually. This hunter harvest is not significantly different than the previous couple decades. So what else is changing, why do we all think there are fewer deer?
Overall Predator Numbers!
The bottom line is that coyotes, cougar, bear, and wolves eat deer and elk. WDFW has cut back cougar seasons and purposefully expanded, in fact nearly doubled cougar populations in Washington and WDFW is now working toward fulfilling the most liberal wolf plan of any western state. Additionally, trapping and hunting of coyotes has been drastically reduced due to trapping bans and decreased fur markets. Once wolves multiply and decimate certain elk herds as they have historically done in ID/MT/WY then this conversation will arise again and certain people will blame everything except the predators they are in love with. Only people who are capable of performing elementary school math will be able to decipher the true reason for the decline in the herds.
Cougar Predation
Cougar are my favorite animal to hunt so I would never want to see them eliminated, but we have too many cougar and no matter what some people may try to say that cougar do not impact herds, they are either lieing or sadly uninformed. Numerous studies have shown that one cougar eats from 25 to 50 deer per year. In areas with more elk than deer cougar tend to make elk their diet instead of deer.
A NE Washington Cougar study found that the cougar annual kill rate on deer was from 7 days to 11 days.
Cougars in NE Washington
http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf (http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/cruickshank_2004_msc.pdf)QuoteAcross the study area and within The Wedge, cougars selected for mule deer over white-tailed deer during the year. When examined seasonally, cougars strongly selected for mule deer during the summer but not during the winter, and in no season or location did they select for white-tailed deer. The annual kill rate of 7 days for cougars falls within the range of 7 to 11 days reported by other investigators (Hornocker 1970, Beier et al. 1995, and Murphy 1998). The interval may be at the low end because 15 of the 22 intervals were from female cougars with kittens, which typically show a higher kill rate than single adults (Murphy 1998). Only 2 intervals were from a male cougar (8 and 11
days). We found no differences in habitat characteristics between mule deer and whitetailed deer kill sites.
WA Cougar Population and Impacts On Herds
WDFW said at the Colville Wolf Meeting there are likely 3500 to 4000 cougar in Washington (as compared to 2000 estimated population a few decades ago). Therefore according to these statistics from a NE WA cougar study the 1500 to 2000 additional cougar WDFW has in WA are eating anywhere from 49,772 to 104,285 more deer (or substituting elk) than cougar ate when the cougar population was estimated at 2000 animals a few decades ago.
Coyotes Lead Way in Deer Deaths
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/outdoors/115154119.html)
I think most people will agree that the coyote population has increased. According to studies that are underway in several Midwest and eastern states, coyotes have a significant impact on deer numbers.QuoteIn all, 57 adult deer and 44 fawns have been captured and fitted with tracking devices.
The data are from Jan. 1, 2009 through Aug. 31, 2010. Though preliminary, they are showing some very interesting results.
Coyotes in the study area were responsible for 13 fawn mortalities, followed by bobcat (9), unknown predator (5), abandonment (4), unknown agent (3), black bear (2), vehicle collision (2), wolf (2) and bald eagle (1).
Among adult and yearling female deer, coyote killed 6, followed by wolf (3), black bear (2), drowning (2), birthing complications (1), vehicle collision (1) and unknown predator (1).
Bear predation on Elk in Idaho
http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf (http://www.wildlifemanagementinstitute.org/PDF/12-Elk%20and%20Predation....pdf)QuoteDuring 1973 to 1975, neonatal calf survival from birth to October 1 averaged 37.5 percent. Predation by black bears was the primary proximate cause of mortality (Table 3). In 1976, 75 black bears were removed from the study area. Calf survival increased to 67 percent, then approximated preremovallevels 2 years later. Calf-to-cow ratios (an index of recruitment) from aerial surveys showed a similar pattern (Schlegel 1986). Concurrently, the trend in calf-to-cow ratios was similar in surrounding GMUs, where the bear population was not reduced, compromising interpretation of these results (Schlegel 1986). Nevertheless, these data suggest that predation by black bears is additive and can be a significant factor limiting elk recruitment and population growth.
Wolf Impacts on Elk/Deer
I know we have some wolf lovers on the forum but they cannot refute the statistics provided by other western states and published in the WA Wolf Plan. Unless my memory is mistaken, the plan states that each wolf kills an average of 44 deer or 17 elk per year. Wolf impacts have not been felt in most areas of Washington yet because we have not reached our population objective. However, simple math and WDFW wolf plan statistics tell us that 15 breeding pairs which translates to roughly 150 wolves on the ground will consume 2550 elk or 6600 deer per year. That sounds like wolves might possibly fit in if hunters give up a few deer and elk from our annual harvest. However, Idaho's wolf plan called for 10 breeding pairs and they ended up with nearly 800 documented wolves. If Washington's wolf plan is as overly successful as Idaho then our 15 breeding pairs may translate into as many as 1200 wolves that will eat 20,400 elk or 52,800 deer per year.
What's In Store In The Future
I have provided the statistics on predation, they are facts not speculation. How WDFW continues to manage predators will determine the future of our herds. If WDFW continues to increase predator numbers, the increased cougar, bear, coyote, and wolf numbers are statistically bound to have an effect on hunting in Washington.
It doesn't matter how much summer range or winter range you have, if the animals are being eaten the summer range and winter range will not get fully utilized. Herds will decline regardless of how much blame biologists and the WDFW try to pin on every other factor. Perhaps some elk herds have increased in the last decade but deer are declining and when there are no deer the predators will be forced to eat elk so the elk numbers will decline if predator numbers continue to increase. :twocents:
Even in the summer time when driving around you usually see at least two or three cows off the side of the road, and nothing this year at all.
Only seen in the Elk 2013 forum only a few reports of spikes being gotten.
Truly some big ones in areas where you can still hunt big bulls without a permit, but still seems less than last year.
I wrote last night our region one area some of my ideas on the hunting seasons and gripes I see here. Doing like I said to do write our people in charge of this.
Seems like we warned though when they banned dog hunting for cougers etc... the animal rightists have us where they want us.
Post by: RG on November 01, 2013, 07:28:31 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 01, 2013, 08:44:02 AM
As for the "red dot" roads- there's no such thing. It's the Green Dot system, meaning only roads with green dots are open for motorized vehicles. This restriction, in certain areas, along with the spike only general season, is needed to keep success rates low, while allowing the state to sell an unlimited number of elk tags.
If we want a better, higher quality elk hunting experience, with good road access into hunting areas on public lands, we need to go to elk hunting by permit only and do away with the general spike seasons altogether.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: csaaphill on November 01, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
Okay, this spike issue- as I said, I never thought of it as being an issue. I like the 'any bull' option for someone who waited years to draw a bull permit. Most guys aren't going to take a spike anyway. But it's a good option to have if it comes down to your last day to hunt. They could take a spike anyway during the general season. Again, this is really a non-issue. I've never seen it mentioned on this site until now.I've seen many times on here where people were griping about spike only units!
As for the "red dot" roads- there's no such thing. It's the Green Dot system, meaning only roads with green dots are open for motorized vehicles. This restriction, in certain areas, along with the spike only general season, is needed to keep success rates low, while allowing the state to sell an unlimited number of elk tags.
If we want a better, higher quality elk hunting experience, with good road access into hunting areas on public lands, we need to go to elk hunting by permit only and do away with the general spike seasons altogether.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Peole have left off hunting or elk hunting here for that very reason!
I do remember seeing those welcome hunters signs think it was in the Missery Mt area above Pomeroy.
and no we don't need to go to permit only for elk people will quit all together then and then we should all know who wins then? wont be us that's for sure but brocalli eaters and such :twocents:
Post by: hub on November 03, 2013, 12:22:31 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 03, 2013, 09:21:24 AM
https://collaboration.idfg.idaho.gov/WildlifeTechnicalReports/Elk%20Statewide%20PR11.pdf
Go right to page 1 which is the Statewide Summarry and you'll see this "Elk can be classified as habitat generalists, but they still have certain basic habitat requirements; food, water, and, where hunted, hiding cover and security areas (blocks of
elk habitat with limited access)." and this.............
"Access into elk habitat is a primary problem facing wildlife managers today. Roads and motorized trails built into elk habitat for timber management and other activities increase hunter access and often increase elk vulnerability to harvest."
"Elk habitat is reduced not only by the amount of land taken by the roads themselves, but also because elk tend to avoid areas adjacent to such roads and motorized trails."
And this........
"Because human access into elk habitat is the primary problem associated with roads and motorized trails, perhaps the most critical habitat management factor facing wildlife managers is the use of roads and motorized trails. A comprehensive road and motorized trail management program, involving key elements including timing of construction activities, limitation on use of some roads for single-use only (i.e., timber removal), and complete or periodic closures of other roads and motorized trails to create large blocks of habitat with non-motorized access, could do much to benefit elk management."
This report is full of other good information too.
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 03, 2013, 08:19:33 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 03, 2013, 10:14:30 PM
Post by: huntrights on November 04, 2013, 03:28:28 AM
2013 Elk Hunt
After a week of hunting elk in “prime” Washington elk habitat, no elk were harvested by any of the several experienced hunters in elk camp during the modern firearm general elk season. A legal elk in the GMUs would have been a spike or antlerless with the proper permit. The descriptions of the good old days sounds like the way it should be. However, the current situation is far different. What happened? The story seems to be the same from many hunters.
Here are some of the very consistent comments:
• The season is too early; this is the primary complaint from many hunters. When the modern firearm general elk season was during the first half of November, the winter storms had started to push elk herds to lower elevations where hunters had reasonable access to the migrating elk. The earlier, much warmer season only gives hunters the possibility of harvesting from a much smaller population of year-round resident elk.
• Road closures and decommissioning (destruction) of roads has limited and/or impaired hunter access into hunting areas.
• Camping areas have been closed which limit where hunters can camp and park their vehicles.
• Restrictive regulations have made hunting elk more difficult to succeed. Specifically: True spike and spike can be difficult to identify as legal at typical modern rifle distances (100 +/- yards). The chances of success were equated to the lottery.
• There are too many categories of hunts based on antler growth and gender: Any bull, any elk, spike bull, true spike bull, 3 point minimum, antlerless.
• The modern firearm general elk season is preceded by archery elk, muzzleloader elk, special permit elk, and deer hunts. The remaining resident elk are very spooked by the time the general modern firearm season comes around.
• It can take many years to get drawn for a special/quality hunt; this is discouraging.
• The WDFW does not seem to be working to accommodate hunters. The changes in regulations and season schedules appear to be geared toward maximizing revenue versus providing reasonable opportunities for hunter success that result in maintaining healthy elk populations.
Hunting elk in Washington seems to be more complicated and difficult than it is in other states with significant elk populations. Many hunters that are Washington residents have become ex-Washington elk hunters because of the reasons stated at the beginning of this thread and the list given in this post. It might help to communicate the many complaints and concerns to the WDFW and request that they simplify the regulations and schedule the seasons in such a manner that maximizes hunter success while ensuring that healthy elk populations are maintained.
Post by: huntnphool on November 04, 2013, 05:40:58 AM
Quote
request that they simplify the regulations and schedule the seasons in such a manner that maximizes hunter success while ensuring that healthy elk populations are maintained
Isn't that what they say they are doing now? :chuckle:
Same thing for general deer (east side), the dates are rediculous. Eliminate all the November permit hunts and let the general hunt go through Oct.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 04, 2013, 08:03:05 AM
:twocents::yeah:
2013 Elk Hunt
After a week of hunting elk in “prime” Washington elk habitat, no elk were harvested by any of the several experienced hunters in elk camp during the modern firearm general elk season. A legal elk in the GMUs would have been a spike or antlerless with the proper permit. The descriptions of the good old days sounds like the way it should be. However, the current situation is far different. What happened? The story seems to be the same from many hunters.
Here are some of the very consistent comments:
• The season is too early; this is the primary complaint from many hunters. When the modern firearm general elk season was during the first half of November, the winter storms had started to push elk herds to lower elevations where hunters had reasonable access to the migrating elk. The earlier, much warmer season only gives hunters the possibility of harvesting from a much smaller population of year-round resident elk.
• Road closures and decommissioning (destruction) of roads has limited and/or impaired hunter access into hunting areas.
• Camping areas have been closed which limit where hunters can camp and park their vehicles.
• Restrictive regulations have made hunting elk more difficult to succeed. Specifically: True spike and spike can be difficult to identify as legal at typical modern rifle distances (100 +/- yards). The chances of success were equated to the lottery.
• There are too many categories of hunts based on antler growth and gender: Any bull, any elk, spike bull, true spike bull, 3 point minimum, antlerless.
• The modern firearm general elk season is preceded by archery elk, muzzleloader elk, special permit elk, and deer hunts. The remaining resident elk are very spooked by the time the general modern firearm season comes around.
• It can take many years to get drawn for a special/quality hunt; this is discouraging.
• The WDFW does not seem to be working to accommodate hunters. The changes in regulations and season schedules appear to be geared toward maximizing revenue versus providing reasonable opportunities for hunter success that result in maintaining healthy elk populations.
Hunting elk in Washington seems to be more complicated and difficult than it is in other states with significant elk populations. Many hunters that are Washington residents have become ex-Washington elk hunters because of the reasons stated at the beginning of this thread and the list given in this post. It might help to communicate the many complaints and concerns to the WDFW and request that they simplify the regulations and schedule the seasons in such a manner that maximizes hunter success while ensuring that healthy elk populations are maintained.
And some would prefer to give away MORE...... :dunno:
Okay, this spike issue- as I said, I never thought of it as being an issue. I like the 'any bull' option for someone who waited years to draw a bull permit. Most guys aren't going to take a spike anyway. But it's a good option to have if it comes down to your last day to hunt. They could take a spike anyway during the general season. Again, this is really a non-issue. I've never seen it mentioned on this site until now.
As for the "red dot" roads- there's no such thing. It's the Green Dot system, meaning only roads with green dots are open for motorized vehicles. This restriction, in certain areas, along with the spike only general season, is needed to keep success rates low, while allowing the state to sell an unlimited number of elk tags.
If we want a better, higher quality elk hunting experience, with good road access into hunting areas on public lands, we need to go to elk hunting by permit only and do away with the general spike seasons altogether.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Our DFW created the native trophy hunts with their (temporary?) "spike only"and the true spike was sold as temporary also
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2013, 08:37:43 AM
In other words, is our elk population in excess of what the habitat can support?
If so, then yes, I agree, liberalize the elk season and open more roads so more elk can be harvested and let's work on decreasing the number of elk in this state. :rolleyes:
Post by: huntnphool on November 04, 2013, 09:20:10 AM
liberalize the elk seasonHunting in Washington couldn't be any more "liberalized" if WDFW wanted it to be. :twocents:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 04, 2013, 09:33:16 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2013, 09:35:25 AM
Quote
Not saying we've got too many.....just that those who run the show CREATED the problem!
Which problem?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 04, 2013, 09:42:27 AM
Post by: muzbuster on November 04, 2013, 09:45:04 AM
You nailed it bobcat! Its all about managing how to get more money, period, has absolutely nothing to do with managing the game populations or enhancing recreational opportunities.
Post by: huntnphool on November 04, 2013, 10:00:02 AM
Its all about managing how to get more money, has absolutely nothing to do with managing the game populations or enhancing recreational opportunities.Bingo!
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 04, 2013, 12:18:58 PM
The WDFW does not seem to be working to accommodate hunters. The changes in regulations and season schedules appear to be geared toward maximizing revenue versus providing reasonable opportunities for hunter success that result in maintaining healthy elk populations.
It might help to communicate the many complaints and concerns to the WDFW and request that they simplify the regulations and schedule the seasons in such a manner that maximizes hunter success while ensuring that healthy elk populations are maintained.
First off, It's not game managers' jobs to maximize hunter success. It's their job to do what's best for the herds as a whole. In the long run, THAT is what maximizes success. Maintain a sustainable herd and maintain a sustainable harvest level. That is what all the rules and regulations and policies that hunters like to complain about attempt to do. There are so many variables that it's a thankless job. On one hand you have to maintain a herd size and male/female ratio that will sustain the herd, on the other side, you have hunters clamoring that they deserve to kill more animals. But what if killing more animals isn't sustainable? What if that causes a declining herd? Then you get to listen to hunters complain some more. But all the complaints from hunters aren't the same. Some want more animals (even if habitat won't support it). Some want longer seasons (even though that may lead to a harvest level that isn't sustainable). Some want more trophy animals (which means not harvesting as many animals to allow more to get to trophy size). So right there you have a divide, hunters who want a higher success rate vs hunters who want bigger animals. You can't manage for more trophies and hope to maintain a high success rate, because to do so, you have to stockpile animals and at some point you come up against the fact that habitat can only sustain so many animals. Then a bad winter comes along and knocks everything down and again hunters are screaming that managers aren't doing their job.
Next add in all the other factors................. A growing statewide population, ballot box game management, more land going to agriculture (this can be good as it can provide good habitat, but it can also bring calls to reduce herds that are causing crop damages and also limit areas where hunters are welcome), more private land made off limits to hunters, more tribal hunting, too many hunters in the woods at one time, and on and on.
So seasons are set to try to please everyone. Never a good idea..... To alleviate crowded conditions, hunters were told they had to pick one method of hunting, modern, archery, or muzzle loader. Instead of everyone being in the woods at one time, they each get their own season. Hunters Modern weapons have the largest and most efficient group of hunters, so their seasons are shorter, but they get to hunt the whole state. Archery and muzzle loaders are less efficient, so they get longer seasons, but in way fewer units than modern. So hunters who want longer seasons and more time in the woods can opt for one of the primitive seasons. But wait, many primitive hunters don't like the restrictions such as no scopes on muzzle loaders. They want to be more efficient. But it is the inefficiency that allows the seasons to be longer. Make them more efficient and not only will more animals be taken, but more hunters will be interested in that method so seasons or areas will have to be reduced.
Elk season they make you pick which side of the state you hunt on. That way they can have seasons at different times and all the hunters in the state don't go hunt the early east side hunt, then all go hunt the later west side hunt. Less people in the woods when we're hunting, can't we all agree this is a good thing? Mature bull cow ratios out of whack? Control bull harvest with spike only seasons and drawings for mature bulls. This provides hunting opportunity for many while allowing a shot at a trophy bull if that's your thing. Want more branched bulls? Three point or better units and let the spikes live an extra year. The alternative is going to an all draw hunt for bulls and not everybody gets to hunt every year. Think of the implications if that happens.
No, game managers can't maximize your success for you and they can't make everybody happy. If that's what you want, pay the big bucks and go hunt on a game farm where everything is controlled. Myself, I'm just happy to have the opportunity to get out in the woods and hunt. I either make my own success or I don't.
And PS, so what if being successful out hunting is harder? It just makes it that much more satisfying when you succeed in tagging out.
Post by: idahohuntr on November 04, 2013, 02:39:38 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 05, 2013, 01:15:16 PM
Post by: huntrights on November 05, 2013, 01:37:31 PM
Other states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters. Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk? Ex-Washington elk hunters give reasons for not hunting elk in this state because of the reasons stated at the beginning of this thread and the list of complaints shared by 20+ hunters this season. If hunters continue to spend multiple weeks of their time/vacations and their hard earned money to hunt elk in Washington while only having a very small chance of success, those hunters may stop hunting here and choose to hunt elsewhere. Hunters don’t go hunting so they can go on an expensive camping trip; they always have the desire to successfully harvest their game animals.
Another important fact we should all keep in mind is that hunting of all game species is a legitimate form of sustenance (food) for those that successfully harvest their game. Although a big rack may give the successful hunter some bragging rights in elk or deer camp, the bottom line is what is edible and puts food on the table for their family and friends. Hunting only started to be looked upon as a sport because we have industrialized farming and ranching, and grocery stores within convenient distances from our homes. The hunting community would be well served to change their cumulative mind-set back to viewing hunting as a form of sustenance. The sporting part of hunting is that we also enjoy the many positive social interactions and bonding experiences with family, friends, and other hunters. We also enjoy the connections with our natural surroundings that hunting provides.
Obviously there are no simple answers to the stated issues. However, it does appear that the pendulum of regulations, hunting conditions, and access to land (road and camp area closures) that affects hunters has swung too far in a direction that has caused hunters to become very discontent and suspicious of the related regulations, policies, and procedures. Many hunters appear to have become somewhat distrusting of the WDFW motives whether those perceptions are based in fact or not.
There are most likely some WDFW personnel that take part in, or monitor some of the posts in this forum. Although we should all take part in WDFW public comment and meeting opportunities to express these concerns, WDFW personnel that read these posts should consider informing the WDFW Commission and the WDFW leadership of what hunters in the field are experiencing and saying.
Dave Workman - Thank you for starting this thread. It is helping to shine a spotlight on many issues that need to be addressed by the WDFW and hunters that are willing to get engaged in the process.
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2013, 01:48:26 PM
Quote
Other states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters. Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk?
No need for me to read further than that. You're way off base if you're trying to compare Washington with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Those states have a much lower human population, way more public land, and a whole lot more wildlife habitat that supports wildlife.
Those states don't need to have all the restrictions we have, due to all of the differences I listed above. Pretty basic knowledge- I really shouldn't have to explain it, SHOULD I?? ??? :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 05, 2013, 01:53:31 PM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 05, 2013, 02:16:08 PM
Well said sitka
Actually, Sitka ignores one very important piece of this puzzle he has layed out.
The number of hunters in the field. THAT counts for something.
In 1975, Washington fielded 346,197 paid hunting license holders according to data from the USFWS.
Ten years later, in 1985, that number had declined to 298,193.
Last year, the number was 194,272. According to my math that's more than 150,000 hunters lost in the state.
You figure that not all of those people hunt elk. That's a given.
Yet back in the day, we were able to sustain longer seasons for a lot more hunters. We have, allegedly, healthy elk herds. Their populations need to be managed properly, but now with shorter seasons and earlier seasons designed to reduce the harvest, one must ponder seriously whether we hunters are being considered just one more competitor against:
Mountain Lions
Wolves
Other predators
Tribal hunters
Seems to me that the hunters, who pay the freight (as opposed to growing populations of predators that pay nothing) are getting the crap end of the stick.
In summation, the answer is YES...the remaining licensed hunters deserve longer time in the field and more opportunity to notch a tag. Those who want to hold out for a trophy...do it. Those satisfied with meat in the cooler, be my guest.
I just hunted Yakima County around Bethel Ridge and Devil's Table. I talked to guys who were disappointed to furious about the season. I watched several crews pull out before the second weekend, and they were uniformly pissed, at least the ones I spoke with. The snow started falling just as the season was wrapping up. Back when I started hunting, we would start the season with falling leaves and work through the first snowfall that made the herds start moving.
And if we didn't score, we could still hunt with a bow or muzzleloader in a late season by getting the additional permit.
The hunting population here has declined by about 40-45% in my adult lifetime.
So, what's the answer? It has many facets.
Restore hound hunting for cougars and take the population down. Ditto black bears. It might keep them out of the suburbs.
Reduce the wolf management plateau from 15 breeding pairs to five. We're already there or close to it and it doesn't have to require a wolf population all over the state. If Seattle tree huggers want wolves....release a pack in the Green Lake neighborhood. That's a sure cure for the Farley Mowatt syndrome.
Poachers: Crack down on them hard and I don't give a rip if they belong to a tribe. Hammer them. Thrill killers like this character allegedly has done in the Okanogan...put them in prison. That strips them of the right to possess a firearm or ammunition. Find them with a gun anytime in the future, violate them right back to the pen for felon in possession.
Oh, and anybody who advocates rolling over and going to permit-only hunting, and further cutting back on sportsman opportunity....should be flogged. :chuckle: ;)
Whew. I need to take a nap. At my age I tire easily..
Dinosaurs do.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 05, 2013, 02:19:47 PM
ALL of the elk hunters (20+) in a couple of the eastern Washington hunt areas that shared their sincere thoughts with me regarding the modern firearm general elk season indicated discontent with the current elk hunting situation. This does not include those that have already decided to NOT to hunt in Washington anymore because of the current situation. When 100% of a sample of hunters indicates significant issues with the current regulations, seasons, road and campsite closures/decommissioning (destruction), and a perception of wildlife management to maximize revenue, one might conclude there are very real issues that need to be addressed.
There are most likely some WDFW personnel that take part in, or monitor some of the posts in this forum. Although we should all take part in WDFW public comment and meeting opportunities to express these concerns, WDFW personnel that read these posts should consider informing the WDFW Commission and the WDFW leadership of what hunters in the field are experiencing and saying.
Dave Workman - Thank you for starting this thread. It is helping to shine a spotlight on many issues that need to be addressed by the WDFW and hunters that are willing to get engaged in the process.
They do, but maybe they don't care.
That guy Workman...he gets me into more trouble than is worthwhile.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 05, 2013, 05:14:50 PM
:twocents:
2013 Elk Hunt
After a week of hunting elk in “prime” Washington elk habitat, no elk were harvested by any of the several experienced hunters in elk camp during the modern firearm general elk season. A legal elk in the GMUs would have been a spike or antlerless with the proper permit. The descriptions of the good old days sounds like the way it should be. However, the current situation is far different. What happened? The story seems to be the same from many hunters.
Ahem.... clean out your P.M. INBOX :chuckle:
Post by: huntrights on November 05, 2013, 05:45:56 PM
Ahem.... clean out your P.M. INBOX :chuckle:
Done. :tup:
Post by: Brute on November 05, 2013, 05:58:24 PM
[/quote]
I wish Bill Monroe of the Oregonian would stick up for hunters the way you are Workman. He seems to be more worried about the Beavers new logo. :bash:
We are having some of the same issues as Washington hunters are experiencing here in Oregon.
At least by putting the article into the paper more then just the people on this forum will be seeing it. :twocents:
Post by: huntrights on November 05, 2013, 10:09:17 PM
QuoteOther states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters. Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk?
No need for me to read further than that. You're way off base if you're trying to compare Washington with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Those states have a much lower human population, way more public land, and a whole lot more wildlife habitat that supports wildlife.
Those states don't need to have all the restrictions we have, due to all of the differences I listed above. Pretty basic knowledge- I really shouldn't have to explain it, SHOULD I?? ??? :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Point taken. However, all states with elk populations will obviously vary in their management methods and policies. The primary issue being brought forth in this thread is that there appears to be a large number of elk hunters that are complaining about the same issues; that might indicate there are some issues that should be addressed by the WDFW and the affected hunters.
Since you brought up the differences between states, I looked into some of the differences. Finding the exact amount of suitable elk habitat per state would take more time than I am willing to spend on this right now; however, I did find a map showing relative areas of elk habitat in the western United States (see attached picture). I focused on 2010 numbers because that was the most recent human population census. Note: Washington elk hunter success in 2012 was 13.5%; I was told the weather was the likely cause of the increase. A significant difference between Washington and the other states is the hunter to elk ratio and the success rates.
State Human Pop. Elk Pop. Est. Elk Hunter No. Hunter to Elk Ratio Elk Harvest Success
Idaho 1,567,582 116,800 77,112 0.66 17,470 22.7%
Montana 989,415 117,880 103,090 0.87 24,744 24.0%
Washington 6,724,540 60,000 71,418 1.19 7,060 9.9%
Wyoming 563,626 90,000 53,780 0.60 25,672 47.7%
Sources:
Human Population (2010): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Elk Population:
Idaho (based on last flight survey 1997 to 2011): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/
Washington (Unpublished est. from WDFW): Unpublished est. from WDFW.
Wyoming: http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31498
Elk Hunter Numbers:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01327/wdfw01327.pdf
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk Harvest:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk range per RMEF
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx?elkrange=true&projects=false
Post by: Humptulips on November 05, 2013, 11:08:24 PM
That would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. A lot of guys have gave up. I've seen three hunters so far this season.
I see acording to WDFW the Olympic herd is at target numbers. Either they have reduced their target or they are not looking.
I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.
The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.
None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.
I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.
Wolves :dunno: Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today.
Post by: csaaphill on November 05, 2013, 11:09:12 PM
Guess that's a start.
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
When these 3pt minimums came in, and spike only seasons began I was in my 20's and liked the 3pt minimum for a while, but didnt like the spike only. Have continuasly hunted even though bigger restrictions, but the point is sometimes status quoe isn't right!
WE NEED A CHANGE!
Something that keeps changing too not this change once then stay for a millinium but keep changing every few years!
Post by: Dave Workman on November 06, 2013, 04:45:32 AM
I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.
The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.
None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.
I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.
Wolves :dunno: Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today.
The cougar regs CAN be changed, but it doesn't appear anybody on the WDFW has the gonads to seriously lobby and EDUCATE the legislature.
What it may take, heaven forbid, is for a hungry cougar or two to come visit a day care or elementary school, or to dine on a few hikers or joggers.
Then watch how fast lawmakers act.
It's rather odd, isn't it? Lawmakers will push for gun bans because of what "might" happen in the future. But lobby for a reduction in the cougar population because of what "might" happen is a no-no. That kind of hypocrisy is going to get somebody killed, just like in California where joggers have already been killed and partially eaten.
I have the perfect solution: Cougars at the capitol campus. And throw in a hungry wolf pack for good measure. Change will come so fast your eyeballs will click watching the progress.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 06, 2013, 04:58:15 AM
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
Part of the reason is that some of these people are still so wet behind the ears they believe what they see on television. Status quo is fine. Elk hunting is being followed by a cameraman to see a bunch of big bulls tracking through some timber.
Defending the situation now is indefensible. Suggesting permit-only hunting and more road closures is go-along to get-along, and amounts to capitulation, usually with one's head up one's rectum. Maybe selfishness has a lot to do with it, and I saw that back in the 80s when some user group advocates thought they'd get a great wilderness experience by forcing a weapons choice. Ultimately they've been screwed.
It's time to re-evaluate the permit hunting system we currently have.
The one thing these 80s people don't get is that one day, they will not be able to get around as well as they think they can now.
BTW: HUNTRIGHTS... good work on the data and numbers.
And BRUTE: I've been sticking up for hunters for many years. It's because I am a hunter.
Post by: Special T on November 06, 2013, 06:33:58 AM
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 06, 2013, 06:41:11 AM
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 06, 2013, 06:43:56 AM
Post by: rtspring on November 06, 2013, 06:46:03 AM
I guess I don't get it, because all I see is that we have the highest density of hunters and almost the least amount of elk and not really any room to increase herd size do to needed wintering grounds. So I only see two viable options. 1. reduce predators drastically or 2. Go to a permit only system. Going to a permit only system doesn't mean that you will have to wait a bunch of years to hunt, it does mean that there could be 20-30% less people in the field which would increase success rate. I always thought a good idea could be that 50% of hunters get to hunt for deer one year while the other 50% get to hunt elk then switch around the next year. Then you could provide longer seasons with less restrictions.
Monetary gain by the state would suffer, although it may be a good idea. It will never fly in this state..
Post by: Dave Workman on November 06, 2013, 07:08:38 AM
I guess I don't get it, because all I see is that we have the highest density of hunters and almost the least amount of elk and not really any room to increase herd size do to needed wintering grounds. So I only see two viable options. 1. reduce predators drastically or 2. Go to a permit only system. Going to a permit only system doesn't mean that you will have to wait a bunch of years to hunt, it does mean that there could be 20-30% less people in the field which would increase success rate. I always thought a good idea could be that 50% of hunters get to hunt for deer one year while the other 50% get to hunt elk then switch around the next year. Then you could provide longer seasons with less restrictions.
Everything you say amounts to PEOPLE management, rather than GAME management. The alternating hunting options is kind of intriguing, but i don't believe it would ever fly because people who hunt want to hunt, not play games.
Quote
But I really do love the folks on this site who go the route that if your opinion is different then theirs, then you are apparently stupid or have no common sense. Its so ridiculous its comical
Well, if one falls into the 'Less is the new More' category, there's not much to defend that.
Respect is something one earns. It isn't earned with silly notions about placing more limits on someone's hunting opportunities.
What you witness here is a cultural disagreement between people who are from around here and have been around here for a long time; people who know what we had and what we've lost and they want it back because they believe there are ways we can get it back...and people who are from a younger generation primarily, and many who ain't from around here, who — like it or not — are really part of the problem by having moved here from somewhere else and have a different mindset about permits, and drawings, and what "quality" is. Or, they are products of the late 1970s or 1980s now in their wonderful youth, full of piss and vinegar (and sometimes horse$#!t) who are willing to go along with what they've got because it's all they've ever known.
Now, being "from around here" is as much a mindset as a heritage. A lot of people on this forum are 2nd or 3rd generation Northwesterners and Washingtonians. They have witnessed that which they criticize and condemn because, in some cases at least, they had the smarts to predict a lot of this stuff 20-30 years ago. They were right then, and they are right now.
Disagreement and debate isn't unhealthy. it's the life's blood of any social system, including the hunting fraternity.
Don't be too hasty to criticize somebody for having little patience. This is the Northwest and it can be a pretty harsh environment that doesn't suffer foolishness. There are literally hundreds of years of combined experience on this forum, and a lot of that experience — with the state — has been unpleasant and, shall we say, disappointing.
Welcome aboard after your first 35 posts. Watch your topknot. :hello:
You must tell us about yourself.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 06, 2013, 08:10:25 AM
Gotta love those that carry DFW water on here (we all know who they are)
Kinda like he knows not with who he sleeps, promoting people control while considering oneself a "conservative" while actually a Statist
Post by: idahohuntr on November 06, 2013, 09:04:06 AM
Post by: Curly on November 06, 2013, 09:25:22 AM
A report from up by Quinault. Out every day and haven't seen an elk or a fresh track. I've heard two shots all season.
That would have been inconceivable 20 years ago. A lot of guys have gave up. I've seen three hunters so far this season.
I see acording to WDFW the Olympic herd is at target numbers. Either they have reduced their target or they are not looking.
I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.
The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.
None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.
I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.
Wolves :dunno: Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today.
:yeah:
This is an example of why us sportsmen get so frustrated with WDFW. We know what could happen if they really wanted to manage game.
In 1997 (right after the hound, bear baiting, and trapping initiatives went into effect) the WDFW should have implemented measures to increase taking of predators. Instead, we've had 17 years of predator protection and decline of huntable wildlife. (No matter what the WDFW population estimate numbers say for deer and elk, I know I've seen less deer and elk than what I saw in the 80's and early 90's).
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 06, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
Well you are correct I am of a younger generation, I am 34yo and have lived in Washington my whole life along with the past 3 generations of my family. I have been hunting in washington since I was 10 and consider myself a very successful hunter. I love Washington and can't imagine ever leaving. I honestly do believe the WDFW is doing the best that they can but I also believe they have an incredibly difficult job and they have a lot of people to please, not just hunters. I have my opinion and though it may be different from yours I do appreciate your fight for our rights. Thank You
Post by: csaaphill on November 06, 2013, 06:01:27 PM
:yeah:
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
Part of the reason is that some of these people are still so wet behind the ears they believe what they see on television. Status quo is fine. Elk hunting is being followed by a cameraman to see a bunch of big bulls tracking through some timber.
Defending the situation now is indefensible. Suggesting permit-only hunting and more road closures is go-along to get-along, and amounts to capitulation, usually with one's head up one's rectum. Maybe selfishness has a lot to do with it, and I saw that back in the 80s when some user group advocates thought they'd get a great wilderness experience by forcing a weapons choice. Ultimately they've been screwed.
It's time to re-evaluate the permit hunting system we currently have.
The one thing these 80s people don't get is that one day, they will not be able to get around as well as they think they can now.
BTW: HUNTRIGHTS... good work on the data and numbers.
And BRUTE: I've been sticking up for hunters for many years. It's because I am a hunter.
lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days :'(
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!
Post by: huntnphool on November 06, 2013, 10:54:14 PM
Its easy to sit behind a computer and complain, but this thread is short on suggested solutions. Lets hear what you guys propose, and lets have realistic ideas too, not acts of congress!!!:yeah:
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
Part of the reason is that some of these people are still so wet behind the ears they believe what they see on television. Status quo is fine. Elk hunting is being followed by a cameraman to see a bunch of big bulls tracking through some timber.
Defending the situation now is indefensible. Suggesting permit-only hunting and more road closures is go-along to get-along, and amounts to capitulation, usually with one's head up one's rectum. Maybe selfishness has a lot to do with it, and I saw that back in the 80s when some user group advocates thought they'd get a great wilderness experience by forcing a weapons choice. Ultimately they've been screwed.
It's time to re-evaluate the permit hunting system we currently have.
The one thing these 80s people don't get is that one day, they will not be able to get around as well as they think they can now.
BTW: HUNTRIGHTS... good work on the data and numbers.
And BRUTE: I've been sticking up for hunters for many years. It's because I am a hunter.
lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days :'(
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!
Post by: Humptulips on November 06, 2013, 11:18:36 PM
I look back and I can see when the elk started going down hill. It was soon after cougar became a game animal. First they went to a draw for them and then I-655 passed. Of course no need for a draw now but no tools to harvest cougars.
It hasn't been a big drop in Elk numbers, just a gradual decrease as there are more killed every year then are born. Not hunters taking them either.
The thing that bothers about WDFW is they will not do anything about it. They say their hands are tied by 655 and nothing to oveturn it will go through the Legislature. True! But they could make an effort to increase harvest and they won't.
What could they do?
Year around season.
No tag needed to take a cougar, just a big game license.
No limit
Make trapping a legal method of take. I'll explain that one. All they would need to do is for the Fish and Wildlife Commission to give them dual status as big game and furbearers. Trappers would still have to use cage traps but you could catch them in a large enough trap. That is kind of what they did with wolves in ID.
None of these things would in its self solve the problem but at least we would know WDFW was trying. Instead we get this goofy quota system which reduces take if anything.
I am not a fan of the point restriction rules either. Only purpose they have is to reduce hunter success.
Wolves :dunno: Not sure what they will eat when they get here. Maybe brush pickers. I saw a lot of them today.
The cougar regs CAN be changed, but it doesn't appear anybody on the WDFW has the gonads to seriously lobby and EDUCATE the legislature.
What it may take, heaven forbid, is for a hungry cougar or two to come visit a day care or elementary school, or to dine on a few hikers or joggers.
Dave,
I don't believe anything can be changed in the Legislature by WDFWs initiative.
I sat and watched Donny Matorella (Large Carnivore Section Manager) give one heck of a presentation on changing the cougar regs vis-a-vie hound hunting before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources two years ago.
The bill died thanks to Representatives Dunshee and Van De Wege.
Those same people are still in office and they will continue to kill any bill to liberalize hound hunting or trapping.
WDFW could make the changes I suggested by only going before the Fish & Wildlife Commission. That might be doable.
Post by: Humptulips on November 06, 2013, 11:30:26 PM
The data from huntrights shows we have the most hunters per elk of the states shown...we have 5-6x the human population, and people think liberalizing seasons is the solution? I guess I see it as you can have more opportunity or more quality, but not both. Both sides have legitimate arguments. The guys who want to limit opportunity and reduce hunter density are seeking quality...in terms of animals and experience. Guys who want long, liberal seasons want to hunt every year in lots of places and are willing to sacrifice success rate and trophy quality. Anyone who advocates we can have both (liberal seasons and good success rates) for more than a few years without significant and long-term reductions in human population, hunter numbers, habitat alteration etc...they are probably also selling some oceanfront property in Arizona...for cheap. :chuckle:
You can have more opportunity and quality but you need more elk to do it.
I live and hunt here on the west side of the Penninsula and have for about 45 years. There used to be a ton of elk hunters, camps everywhere. The elk are scarce now and so are the hunters. Hunters go where there are elk and if we had as many as we used to have here we would undoubtably get some back. Spread the hunters out and you reduce crowding and you get back quality.
I've seen three hunters this elk season. That was just passing them on the road not out in the brush. Haven't even seen a man track off the road. I have quality out the wazoo, just no elk.
Figure out how to bring the elk back and the rest of the problems solve themselves.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 06, 2013, 11:55:01 PM
Everything you say amounts to PEOPLE management, rather than GAME management. The alternating hunting options is kind of intriguing, but i don't believe it would ever fly because people who hunt want to hunt, not play games.
Respect is something one earns. It isn't earned with silly notions about placing more limits on someone's hunting opportunities.
What you witness here is a cultural disagreement between people who are from around here and have been around here for a long time; people who know what we had and what we've lost and they want it back because they believe there are ways we can get it back...and people who are from a younger generation primarily, and many who ain't from around here, who — like it or not — are really part of the problem by having moved here from somewhere else and have a different mindset about permits, and drawings, and what "quality" is. Or, they are products of the late 1970s or 1980s now in their wonderful youth, full of piss and vinegar (and sometimes horse$#!t) who are willing to go along with what they've got because it's all they've ever known.
Now, being "from around here" is as much a mindset as a heritage. A lot of people on this forum are 2nd or 3rd generation Northwesterners and Washingtonians. They have witnessed that which they criticize and condemn because, in some cases at least, they had the smarts to predict a lot of this stuff 20-30 years ago. They were right then, and they are right now.
Disagreement and debate isn't unhealthy. it's the life's blood of any social system, including the hunting fraternity.
Don't be too hasty to criticize somebody for having little patience. This is the Northwest and it can be a pretty harsh environment that doesn't suffer foolishness. There are literally hundreds of years of combined experience on this forum, and a lot of that experience — with the state — has been unpleasant and, shall we say, disappointing.
Welcome aboard after your first 35 posts. Watch your topknot. :hello:
You must tell us about yourself.
Whoa old salt, 2nd or third generation you say? I'm 4th generation on one side of the family and fifth on the other side. I'll also be 60 this year. So I'm no wet behind the ear puppy. And even tho I'm not in near the shape I was in at 30, I'm not afraid to work to have a good hunt. I plan on continuing until I can't any more then, I'll be done. Nobody will owe me an easy hunt. Trying to intimidate me with your "wisdom" is a waste of time.
Now if you want to talk issues have at it. If you want to huff and puff about your Northwestness all you'll get is an eye roll from me.
So lets take your issue of managing people and not animals. Of course they are managing people, people kill the animals they are charged with managing, so people are part of the equation. Just like you want them to manage predators to manage the herd. What do you think hunters are but a very evolved predator. What do you think a hunting season is. It's a way to manage people. Dates are set to manage people. Antler restrictions manage people. Buck seasons, doe seasons manage people. The alternative to managing people is no closed season and any animal is legal. How many animals will you have left to hunt then? "Managing people" aren't dirty words. It's a prudent management technique.
Now lets go to your complaints about having to choose a weapon and with elk, east or west side. You think that's bad? You seem to like Idaho's management. They have 29 different elk zones and you have to choose one. Then you have to pick A tag or B tag. You either hunt modern with the B tag, or you get to hunt longer early and late seasons with archery or muzzleloader. Then you have to choose between a regular deer tag or a whitetail tag. With a regular tag you hunt early and in more units and you can take a mule deer. But if you want to hunt Whitetails in the rut, you pick the whitetail tag and get way fewer units. And you know what? All these choices you have to pick in Idaho are for the same thing you hate in Washington.......... To manage hunters, spread out effort, and protect herds from getting hit too hard, and to give more and different opportunities to hunters. I like having the different choices and I might not make the same choice every year because I like different challenges or one year a certain time frame might work for me and another year it might not. If every hunter could hunt every season, all our seasons would be shortened drastically. A herd can only stand a certain rate of exploitation and then it starts to decline. That can change from year to year depending on many different factors from weather, such as drouth and snow pack, to logging activity, forest fires, predation, and on and on. Some times it can depend on when the first snow occurs or on the west side if we get a big wind storm to blow the leaves off the trees. The managers can't control it all, most of it is in Mother Nature's hands. They have to factor it all in, look at long term trends and come up with a plan that will fit the parameters for keeping the herds at a sustainable level. It's easy to second guess them, but there aren't many who could do their jobs under the same constraints they have to operate under.
As bad a job as you think they do, I know people who get their deer every year and people who get an elk most years. Some parts of success are up to the hunter.
Post by: huntnphool on November 07, 2013, 12:14:58 AM
Idaho does have "quality" units too though, something Washington doesn't have.
Everything you say amounts to PEOPLE management, rather than GAME management. The alternating hunting options is kind of intriguing, but i don't believe it would ever fly because people who hunt want to hunt, not play games.
Respect is something one earns. It isn't earned with silly notions about placing more limits on someone's hunting opportunities.
What you witness here is a cultural disagreement between people who are from around here and have been around here for a long time; people who know what we had and what we've lost and they want it back because they believe there are ways we can get it back...and people who are from a younger generation primarily, and many who ain't from around here, who — like it or not — are really part of the problem by having moved here from somewhere else and have a different mindset about permits, and drawings, and what "quality" is. Or, they are products of the late 1970s or 1980s now in their wonderful youth, full of piss and vinegar (and sometimes horse$#!t) who are willing to go along with what they've got because it's all they've ever known.
Now, being "from around here" is as much a mindset as a heritage. A lot of people on this forum are 2nd or 3rd generation Northwesterners and Washingtonians. They have witnessed that which they criticize and condemn because, in some cases at least, they had the smarts to predict a lot of this stuff 20-30 years ago. They were right then, and they are right now.
Disagreement and debate isn't unhealthy. it's the life's blood of any social system, including the hunting fraternity.
Don't be too hasty to criticize somebody for having little patience. This is the Northwest and it can be a pretty harsh environment that doesn't suffer foolishness. There are literally hundreds of years of combined experience on this forum, and a lot of that experience — with the state — has been unpleasant and, shall we say, disappointing.
Welcome aboard after your first 35 posts. Watch your topknot. :hello:
You must tell us about yourself.
Whoa old salt, 2nd or third generation you say? I'm 4th generation on one side of the family and fifth on the other side. I'll also be 60 this year. So I'm no wet behind the ear puppy. And even tho I'm not in near the shape I was in at 30, I'm not afraid to work to have a good hunt. I plan on continuing until I can't any more then, I'll be done. Nobody will owe me an easy hunt. Trying to intimidate me with your "wisdom" is a waste of time.
Now if you want to talk issues have at it. If you want to huff and puff about your Northwestness all you'll get is an eye roll from me.
So lets take your issue of managing people and not animals. Of course they are managing people, people kill the animals they are charged with managing, so people are part of the equation. Just like you want them to manage predators to manage the herd. What do you think hunters are but a very evolved predator. What do you think a hunting season is. It's a way to manage people. Dates are set to manage people. Antler restrictions manage people. Buck seasons, doe seasons manage people. The alternative to managing people is no closed season and any animal is legal. How many animals will you have left to hunt then? "Managing people" aren't dirty words. It's a prudent management technique.
Now lets go to your complaints about having to choose a weapon and with elk, east or west side. You think that's bad? You seem to like Idaho's management. They have 29 different elk zones and you have to choose one. Then you have to pick A tag or B tag. You either hunt modern with the B tag, or you get to hunt longer early and late seasons with archery or muzzleloader. Then you have to choose between a regular deer tag or a whitetail tag. With a regular tag you hunt early and in more units and you can take a mule deer. But if you want to hunt Whitetails in the rut, you pick the whitetail tag and get way fewer units. And you know what? All these choices you have to pick in Idaho are for the same thing you hate in Washington.......... To manage hunters, spread out effort, and protect herds from getting hit too hard, and to give more and different opportunities to hunters. I like having the different choices and I might not make the same choice every year because I like different challenges or one year a certain time frame might work for me and another year it might not. If every hunter could hunt every season, all our seasons would be shortened drastically. A herd can only stand a certain rate of exploitation and then it starts to decline. That can change from year to year depending on many different factors from weather, such as drouth and snow pack, to logging activity, forest fires, predation, and on and on. Some times it can depend on when the first snow occurs or on the west side if we get a big wind storm to blow the leaves off the trees. The managers can't control it all, most of it is in Mother Nature's hands. They have to factor it all in, look at long term trends and come up with a plan that will fit the parameters for keeping the herds at a sustainable level. It's easy to second guess them, but there aren't many who could do their jobs under the same constraints they have to operate under.
As bad a job as you think they do, I know people who get their deer every year and people who get an elk most years. Some parts of success are up to the hunter.
Post by: hub on November 07, 2013, 12:48:11 AM
Post by: csaaphill on November 07, 2013, 08:46:44 PM
>:(Its easy to sit behind a computer and complain, but this thread is short on suggested solutions. Lets hear what you guys propose, and lets have realistic ideas too, not acts of congress!!!:yeah:
From what I'm seeing this is Xers versus those born in the 80's or so. So those born in the more modern days will be for what now/status quoe. They won't or don't question things like us older people do!
Part of the reason is that some of these people are still so wet behind the ears they believe what they see on television. Status quo is fine. Elk hunting is being followed by a cameraman to see a bunch of big bulls tracking through some timber.
Defending the situation now is indefensible. Suggesting permit-only hunting and more road closures is go-along to get-along, and amounts to capitulation, usually with one's head up one's rectum. Maybe selfishness has a lot to do with it, and I saw that back in the 80s when some user group advocates thought they'd get a great wilderness experience by forcing a weapons choice. Ultimately they've been screwed.
It's time to re-evaluate the permit hunting system we currently have.
The one thing these 80s people don't get is that one day, they will not be able to get around as well as they think they can now.
BTW: HUNTRIGHTS... good work on the data and numbers.
And BRUTE: I've been sticking up for hunters for many years. It's because I am a hunter.
lol
ya so right I used to go clear to the bottom of canyons and hunt the other side then back down and back up, still do it again the next day. Now maybe once then done for a few days :'(
People truly who are truly pro gun pro hunting really need to watch what their opinions are, for they know not what that leads to sometimes!
I have like I said dont include in the stay behind a computer. I wrote the wdfw as stated with my ideas.
One is to change things around every few years instead of status quoe. I have actually posted here some of my ideas.
Like get rid of this points system crap I hear so much grief over it. Bring back the waiting period like there was when successfull in the field. change these 3pt minimums. shange the spike only seasons bring back longer seasons which btw there is a way to do without culling the whole damned herd like some of you cleary think will happen.
waiting a reply so again don't push me in that bunch! >:(
Post by: csaaphill on November 07, 2013, 08:56:13 PM
This has been on the agenda long ago for the antis get us out of the woods lose our funds then take over. it's also part of their wolf crap for if theres too many wolves and not enough deer elk then they can ban it.
SO instead of letting them win how about working together but that's like f*****ng puling teeth!
No ownder were losing more ground each year! :bash:
Post by: JLS on November 07, 2013, 09:31:09 PM
QuoteOther states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters. Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk?
No need for me to read further than that. You're way off base if you're trying to compare Washington with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Those states have a much lower human population, way more public land, and a whole lot more wildlife habitat that supports wildlife.
Those states don't need to have all the restrictions we have, due to all of the differences I listed above. Pretty basic knowledge- I really shouldn't have to explain it, SHOULD I?? ??? :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Point taken. However, all states with elk populations will obviously vary in their management methods and policies. The primary issue being brought forth in this thread is that there appears to be a large number of elk hunters that are complaining about the same issues; that might indicate there are some issues that should be addressed by the WDFW and the affected hunters.
Since you brought up the differences between states, I looked into some of the differences. Finding the exact amount of suitable elk habitat per state would take more time than I am willing to spend on this right now; however, I did find a map showing relative areas of elk habitat in the western United States (see attached picture). I focused on 2010 numbers because that was the most recent human population census. Note: Washington elk hunter success in 2012 was 13.5%; I was told the weather was the likely cause of the increase. A significant difference between Washington and the other states is the hunter to elk ratio and the success rates.
State Human Pop. Elk Pop. Est. Elk Hunter No. Hunter to Elk Ratio Elk Harvest Success
Idaho 1,567,582 116,800 77,112 0.66 17,470 22.7%
Montana 989,415 117,880 103,090 0.87 24,744 24.0%
Washington 6,724,540 60,000 71,418 1.19 7,060 9.9%
Wyoming 563,626 90,000 53,780 0.60 25,672 47.7%
Sources:
Human Population (2010): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Elk Population:
Idaho (based on last flight survey 1997 to 2011): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/
Washington (Unpublished est. from WDFW): Unpublished est. from WDFW.
Wyoming: http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31498
Elk Hunter Numbers:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01327/wdfw01327.pdf
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk Harvest:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk range per RMEF
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx?elkrange=true&projects=false
Your success rate comparison is apples to oranges though. Washington does not offer near the same amount of opportunity to shoot bulls and cows on a OTC tag like you can in some hunt districts in WY, MT, and ID. Therefore, the success rate does not really compare the quality of the hunting in terms of harvest. Especially when you consider that areas like the Blues, the Colockum, and the Yakima units are all restricted to spike only. That will drastically skew your harvest stats.
And, let's face it. In terms of available geographic area to disperse elk hunters, Washington is quite lacking relative to these states.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 08, 2013, 08:06:27 AM
I think were the product of the divide and conquer strategy. WDFW doesn't realy care who wins they will still have a job no matter!
This has been on the agenda long ago for the antis get us out of the woods lose our funds then take over. it's also part of their wolf crap for if theres too many wolves and not enough deer elk then they can ban it.
SO instead of letting them win how about working together but that's like f*****ng puling teeth!
No ownder were losing more ground each year! :bash:
Kind of like us old folks remember when the ONLY special permit was a antlerless (They called it cow) permit.
Post by: bobcat on November 08, 2013, 09:12:47 AM
Yes this state does have it's issues, mainly due to an excessive human population and on top of that we have the two separate groups (Washington State and the Indian tribes) taking from the same resource, but with totally different seasons and limits.
But I don't believe there's any organized effort to eliminate hunting in this state as some of you seem to think.
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 08, 2013, 09:18:03 AM
All I can say is some of you are a little on the extreme side with your paranoia.
Yes this state does have it's issues, mainly due to an excessive human population and on top of that we have the two separate groups (Washington State and the Indian tribes) taking from the same resource, but with totally different seasons and limits.
But I don't believe there's any organized effort to eliminate hunting in this state as some of you seem to think.
You may be right that there's no organized effort (I'm not sure). However, if their actions produce the same result, we're still screwed as hunters.
Post by: huntrights on November 09, 2013, 06:22:24 PM
QuoteOther states such as Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming seem to maintain healthy elk herds (excluding wolf issues) while also creating reasonable chances of success to elk hunters. Why are many Washington elk hunters going to other states to hunt elk?
No need for me to read further than that. You're way off base if you're trying to compare Washington with Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Those states have a much lower human population, way more public land, and a whole lot more wildlife habitat that supports wildlife.
Those states don't need to have all the restrictions we have, due to all of the differences I listed above. Pretty basic knowledge- I really shouldn't have to explain it, SHOULD I?? ??? :dunno:
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Point taken. However, all states with elk populations will obviously vary in their management methods and policies. The primary issue being brought forth in this thread is that there appears to be a large number of elk hunters that are complaining about the same issues; that might indicate there are some issues that should be addressed by the WDFW and the affected hunters.
Since you brought up the differences between states, I looked into some of the differences. Finding the exact amount of suitable elk habitat per state would take more time than I am willing to spend on this right now; however, I did find a map showing relative areas of elk habitat in the western United States (see attached picture). I focused on 2010 numbers because that was the most recent human population census. Note: Washington elk hunter success in 2012 was 13.5%; I was told the weather was the likely cause of the increase. A significant difference between Washington and the other states is the hunter to elk ratio and the success rates.
State Human Pop. Elk Pop. Est. Elk Hunter No. Hunter to Elk Ratio Elk Harvest Success
Idaho 1,567,582 116,800 77,112 0.66 17,470 22.7%
Montana 989,415 117,880 103,090 0.87 24,744 24.0%
Washington 6,724,540 60,000 71,418 1.19 7,060 9.9%
Wyoming 563,626 90,000 53,780 0.60 25,672 47.7%
Sources:
Human Population (2010): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Elk Population:
Idaho (based on last flight survey 1997 to 2011): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/elk/
Washington (Unpublished est. from WDFW): Unpublished est. from WDFW.
Wyoming: http://fwpiis.mt.gov/content/getItem.aspx?id=31498
Elk Hunter Numbers:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01327/wdfw01327.pdf
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk Harvest:
Idaho (2010): http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/wildlife/elkPlan/state.pdf
Montana (2010): http://fwp.mt.gov/hunting/planahunt/harvestReports.html
Washington (2010): http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html
Wyoming (2010): http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments/Hunting/pdfs/HR2010_ELK0000805.pdf
Elk range per RMEF
http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/WhereWeConserve.aspx?elkrange=true&projects=false
Your success rate comparison is apples to oranges though. Washington does not offer near the same amount of opportunity to shoot bulls and cows on a OTC tag like you can in some hunt districts in WY, MT, and ID. Therefore, the success rate does not really compare the quality of the hunting in terms of harvest. Especially when you consider that areas like the Blues, the Colockum, and the Yakima units are all restricted to spike only. That will drastically skew your harvest stats.
And, let's face it. In terms of available geographic area to disperse elk hunters, Washington is quite lacking relative to these states.
:twocents:
If we don't get the facts out there, then there can't be rational discussions. Colorado, Utah, and Arizona could also be added to the list, but it takes time to look up the information. All states with significant elk populations and suitable elk habitat are obviously unique so comparisons will always be "apples to oranges" as you noted. However, some states do seem to accommodate hunters better than others while maintaining very healthy elk populations. Hearing and reading comments from other hunters who have personally experienced the changes in management policies, procedures, and season dates over the last couple of decades indicates there may be issues that should be addressed. There is no "silver-bullet" solution, but getting the facts together may help build a foundation for meaningful discussions and responsible changes in Washington wildlife management policies, procedures, and season dates.
There are far too many hunters that are not satisfied with the current situation to believe that there are not issues that need to be addressed. Gather the facts and let the discussions begin between hunters and the WDFW.
Post by: csaaphill on November 09, 2013, 11:33:09 PM
Really animal rights with the help of hunters didn't pass no hound hunting?
Aren't animal rightists especially in and around Seattle continuiously trying to undermine us.
Haven't these shorter seasons and other issues been the Grand ideas of some hunters somewhere?
Saying were our own worst enemy has nothing to do with paranoid it's a fact we always fight and argue untill someone sneaks in and messes with our hunting.
Mush liek this issue it seems were divided here some contribute Indians others contribute technoligy while other defend technology. SOme have even said permit only much like ORegon to me that's the straw that broke the camels back.
Post by: RG on November 10, 2013, 08:52:23 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 10, 2013, 09:04:11 AM
Post by: huntrights on November 10, 2013, 11:41:05 AM
There is a forum for this. If overwhelming crowds of hunters from every venue showed up at the commissions public meetings and showered Olympia with personal contact, letters, emails etc. that would be a start. Right now a few guys show up and vent and get categorized as extremists then the politics can go on unchecked.
As with all things political; a unified voice is essential in order to be effective.
As an added note: It seems that the number of Washington elk hunters dropped by 3,468 between 2010 and 2012 (2,854 of those were in the modern firearm group):
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/elk_general.html
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2010/elk_general.html
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 10, 2013, 02:53:16 PM
Post by: Special T on November 10, 2013, 06:39:17 PM
Post by: huntrights on November 10, 2013, 06:49:00 PM
Huntrights, you do realize that despite there being 3368 less elk hunters in 2012 compared to 2010 that the hunters that did hunt took 2,012 more elk. That's a 29.7% improvement. And hunter success improved from 9.9% to 13.5% in 2012 compared to 2010.
:twocents:
Apparently "weather cooperated" in 2012 creating better elk hunting conditions. According to those that were hunting in the "good old days", when the general hunting season was later (i.e. first couple of weeks in November versus the end of October), the weather had a better chance of "cooperating" (snows pushing the elk herds to lower elevations). Spike only and true spike hunts have also had an effect on the total hunter success. In order to understand what has happened, we need to put the pieces of the puzzle together.
The elk hunters that have hunted several decades in the same areas have noted the decline in hunter success during the general season after the season was moved earlier to the end of October. Moving the season a few weeks earlier apparently had a negative affect on hunter success due to the typical weather during those times. If the elk herds that reside in higher elevations have not started their migrations due to weather (i.e. snow), then only smaller year-round resident herds might be all that is available to elk hunters. How many spike elk are in the spike only areas if only the resident, year-round herds are present?
There is obviously a delicate balancing act with season timing. If the season is placed at the height of the winter elk migration, hunter success might exceed what is considered an acceptable harvest needed to maintain healthy and sustainable populations. If the season is scheduled before any elk migration occurs due to weather conditions, then the hunter success will most likely be lower; this is what we seem to be experiencing now.
Large apex predators (i.e. wolves) throw in another wildcard since WDFW can't really control how many elk are killed by them. According to Big Game Forever, each wolf may kill up to 36 elk per year. Wolf populations in Washington are growing. As of March 2013, according to the WDFW web site, the Washington wolf population is estimated to be between 51 and 101. "The minimum wolf count is 51. The estimated population, based on average pack size from other western states and transient wolves, is 101 animals. The actual population in Washington is likely within that range." http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gray_wolf/packs/ Using the Big Game Forever elk kill rate per wolf, the current estimated wolf population may kill between 1,836 to 3,636 elk per year in Washington.
As mentioned before, there seems to be far too many elk hunters that are not happy with the current situation. Apparently many have become so frustrated that they no longer will hunt elk in Washington; they go to other states like Idaho and Montana. This seems to indicate there may be issues that should be discussed and reviewed regarding the current regulatory policies.
Post by: snowpack on November 19, 2013, 10:58:19 AM
I was in a nearby area and somewhat similar story. The GMU I was in used to be packed with people 30 years ago. There would be camps on every spur/ridge/pullout that you could imagine and the campgrounds were overflowing. At night you could look around and count hundreds of campfires on the ridges. Everyday you'd hear at least fifty shots (they might all be at the same animal though :chuckle: ). Loggers just kind of figured they would be strapping a few elk to the wire and flying them out. Most camps were there the entire season.
You can have more opportunity and quality but you need more elk to do it.
I live and hunt here on the west side of the Penninsula and have for about 45 years. There used to be a ton of elk hunters, camps everywhere. The elk are scarce now and so are the hunters. Hunters go where there are elk and if we had as many as we used to have here we would undoubtably get some back. Spread the hunters out and you reduce crowding and you get back quality.
I've seen three hunters this elk season. That was just passing them on the road not out in the brush. Haven't even seen a man track off the road. I have quality out the wazoo, just no elk.
Figure out how to bring the elk back and the rest of the problems solve themselves.
Now...campgrounds are less than half full and you see maybe two or three camps out on the roads. See maybe a handful of hunters the entire season. You barely hear two or three shots each season. Hardly any road hunters. And most of the camps/hunters left within a week.
Post by: csaaphill on November 26, 2013, 12:50:41 AM
:bdid:
If someone puts out a petition to reallow dogs for cougers I'll sign.
Ill still voice my opinions for longer seasons but to change things up more often as well.
every couple of years would keep us on our toes which I think would go further in management.
not this get cozy with us and last decades crap that does now. :bash:
Post by: sakoshooter on December 07, 2013, 07:58:55 PM