Post by: soccerftw123 on November 03, 2013, 10:55:34 PM
Post by: EDT on November 03, 2013, 11:15:50 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on November 04, 2013, 12:06:50 AM
Post by: Scottystyle on November 04, 2013, 03:23:39 AM
Post by: chukar58 on November 04, 2013, 05:31:59 AM
Post by: MHWASH on November 04, 2013, 05:37:56 AM
I have been hunting the BLues since '96 or '97 and can tell you the spike only rule does not hurt the bull numbers. In my opinion the largest factor on the # of mature bulls are the indians. If you don't believe me take a drive to the Blues in late September and see for your self.
I would also love to see Eastern WA go to a draw only for any antlered elk.
Post by: buglebuster on November 04, 2013, 05:41:18 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on November 04, 2013, 05:57:50 AM
Post by: Axle on November 04, 2013, 06:34:34 AM
Quote
What are the elk restrictions in Oregon for bull elk?
For us? - the restriction is in the price of the tag. :yike: That worked very well for me! :(
Post by: Buzz2401 on November 04, 2013, 06:44:50 AM
Post by: brutus1 on November 04, 2013, 07:21:17 AM
Post by: gunnarnewt on November 04, 2013, 07:33:06 AM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on November 04, 2013, 08:07:37 AM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 04, 2013, 08:56:21 AM
If we go permit only you will be sitting on the sideline for along time wishing you could hunt.. Wanting to hunt bulls go to CO, MT, OR, WY, ETC. Be happy that you can hunt each year.
:yeah:
Thank you! Somebody with some sense!
Post by: bobcat on November 04, 2013, 09:03:22 AM
If we go permit only you will be sitting on the sideline for along time wishing you could hunt.. Wanting to hunt bulls go to CO, MT, OR, WY, ETC. Be happy that you can hunt each year.
Not necessarily. It all depends on how they set it up. Oregon is permit only for most of the east side of the state, for rifle season. For those who don't draw a permit, they can still hunt the archery season. Besides that, it could done in such a way that a person could hunt at least every other year. In the off years, just spend more time hunting bears, coyotes, cougars, birds, deer, etc.
I know I would much rather have a good elk hunt every other year, than a terrible elk hunt every single year. Modern rifle elk season in this state is a total joke. There needs to some kind of limitation on the number of elk tags sold.
Post by: scoyoc5 on November 04, 2013, 09:11:24 AM
Post by: gunnarnewt on November 04, 2013, 09:22:01 AM
Post by: buck man on November 04, 2013, 09:32:04 AM
I used to hunt the observatory, cowichee, and manastash units. The hunting has gone down hill dramatically in the last 15 years. I don't think the spike only ruling is the reason for the decline. Its too many hunters and too many predators, and I am sure poaching and tribal hunting play a role too.
I think the only thing that will bring back our herds are permit hunts period!
If we go to a system like Utah. You have the vast majority of the state is permit hunting only. However there are huge units that are general hunting. These units tend to be extremely rugged and have good escapement. If you don't draw you hunt there. Yes they get crowded but they also hold good elk numbers. I know cause I have 10 points in Utah and still bull hunt any year I want. I usually kill a bull every year I go there.
We need to rethink how we manage our herds in this state. You may not be able to hunt elk every year if we go to a lottery system, but we could greatly increase the quality of the hunt if we did. Going to a permit system does not give the "antis" more ammo. It gives the herds a chance to grow again.
Oregon also has it figured out. A few general units, but bow hunters can hunt any draw unit for rifle with no lottery. I do it every year. Their blue mts. Are no different than ours......except they have elk in theirs!! :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on November 04, 2013, 09:49:40 AM
I think its fine the way it is :tup:
:yeah: no matter what the state does folks that don't kill something are gona come up with an excuse..management..wolves...indians...people kill trophy bulls in general units ever year...
In my eyes wa is one of the best sleeper states out there
Just stiring the pot
Post by: NoBark on November 04, 2013, 10:29:59 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on November 04, 2013, 10:46:05 AM
Living in the far north east corner of the state is a blessing during elk season! But we don't have the numbers the Yakima area does. What. We do have is escape cover. Animals can live long enough to grow big.
I used to hunt the observatory, cowichee, and manastash units. The hunting has gone down hill dramatically in the last 15 years. I don't think the spike only ruling is the reason for the decline. Its too many hunters and too many predators, and I am sure poaching and tribal hunting play a role too.
I think the only thing that will bring back our herds are permit hunts period!
If we go to a system like Utah. You have the vast majority of the state is permit hunting only. However there are huge units that are general hunting. These units tend to be extremely rugged and have good escapement. If you don't draw you hunt there. Yes they get crowded but they also hold good elk numbers. I know cause I have 10 points in Utah and still bull hunt any year I want. I usually kill a bull every year I go there.
We need to rethink how we manage our herds in this state. You may not be able to hunt elk every year if we go to a lottery system, but we could greatly increase the quality of the hunt if we did. Going to a permit system does not give the "antis" more ammo. It gives the herds a chance to grow again.
Oregon also has it figured out. A few general units, but bow hunters can hunt any draw unit for rifle with no lottery. I do it every year. Their blue mts. Are no different than ours......except they have elk in theirs!! :twocents:
I couldn't have said it better myself
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 04, 2013, 11:15:20 AM
:yeah: bingo! Wanna hunt bulls come figure the Westside or ne corner out. You can kill branch bulls every year. :dunno:I think its fine the way it is :tup:
:yeah: no matter what the state does folks that don't kill something are gona come up with an excuse..management..wolves...indians...people kill trophy bulls in general units ever year...
In my eyes wa is one of the best sleeper states out there
Just stiring the pot
I don't hunt the eastside because I won't hunt cows and spikes. I like the way it is now.
Post by: KopperBuck on November 04, 2013, 12:24:48 PM
There's still a good portion of good elk country down here that has a general second season, spike only, which is going on right now.
Post by: Roperfive88 on November 04, 2013, 12:27:46 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 04, 2013, 12:29:21 PM
:yeah: bingo! Wanna hunt bulls come figure the Westside or ne corner out. You can kill branch bulls every year. :dunno:I think its fine the way it is :tup:
:yeah: no matter what the state does folks that don't kill something are gona come up with an excuse..management..wolves...indians...people kill trophy bulls in general units ever year...
In my eyes wa is one of the best sleeper states out there
Just stiring the pot
I don't hunt the eastside because I won't hunt cows and spikes. I like the way it is now.
Oh boy our sleeper state is now awake and everybody will come hunt elk here. :chuckle:
Post by: 300rum on November 04, 2013, 12:37:53 PM
Post by: Slenk on November 04, 2013, 12:59:08 PM
I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
You have that now.
Post by: 300rum on November 04, 2013, 01:39:12 PM
What I mean by that is that I could care less about hunting spike's (or killing them) and say I am "elk hunting" or successful or having a "good hunt". Quality v. Quantity.
Unless your measurement of good Elk hunting is measured by revenue generation, Washington just doesn't come close.
I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
You have that now.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on November 04, 2013, 02:41:56 PM
The spike unit system has its peaks and its downs. The main idea behind it I believe was to increase the herd size. Where I hunt in the blues, (Really close to Oregon and pretty far east) the herd size hasn't increased inside the fence for many many years. Record book bulls have increased. Cow numbers haven't. Number of people poaching has went up though. Have you ever sat near a road from dusk till dawn and notice how many guys drive into the mountains? It is an insane amount and there not all there just to see the moon.
Recently the number of Elk inside and outside the fence has increased though with the elk being pushed from Idaho. Hopefully in years to come it will become common to see different herds of elk and be able to see a spike every year and not just every 30 years.
The solution I have would be to shut down the Blues and other spike only units for five or so years and let the herds build up. Anybody caught in the mountains in that time with a rifle not during a deer season should be accused of poaching to help limit some of the herd lose. I also wouldn't mind to see the season pushed back a week to give the mountains some time to calm down from deer season.
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 04, 2013, 03:03:50 PM
I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
Seriously? So you'd get to hunt elk like 4-5 times in your life? Not me.
Post by: vandeman17 on November 04, 2013, 03:26:06 PM
I have hunted the Blues for twenty years, my dad for many more than that. We have both applied for a bull permit in units in the Blues with a combined total of over 50 years, can you guess how many times we have been drawn? 00000000000000000000. I wouldn't want a permit system just to hunt as others have suggested as the state has a proven track record of not drawing based on points, on years put in for the draw, it's a total joke and a huge money maker to the state.
The spike unit system has its peaks and its downs. The main idea behind it I believe was to increase the herd size. Where I hunt in the blues, (Really close to Oregon and pretty far east) the herd size hasn't increased inside the fence for many many years. Record book bulls have increased. Cow numbers haven't. Number of people poaching has went up though. Have you ever sat near a road from dusk till dawn and notice how many guys drive into the mountains? It is an insane amount and there not all there just to see the moon.
Recently the number of Elk inside and outside the fence has increased though with the elk being pushed from Idaho. Hopefully in years to come it will become common to see different herds of elk and be able to see a spike every year and not just every 30 years.
The solution I have would be to shut down the Blues and other spike only units for five or so years and let the herds build up. Anybody caught in the mountains in that time with a rifle not during a deer season should be accused of poaching to help limit some of the herd lose. I also wouldn't mind to see the season pushed back a week to give the mountains some time to calm down from deer season.
I don't think the spike rule was put into place to increase herd size but more to better the mature bull count and bull to cow ratio. With that being said, by closing the area down for a few years would increase the herd numbers, I don't think it would increase the overall quality and health of the herd. I agree with some of the others who have said that we should go to a permit system of some kind. Maybe a hybrid of our current system with other states. Do something like give out a certain amount of permits per area with the first "x" amount being bull tags and then the rest being spike tags based on the counts and objectives of the reason. That way there will still be lots of tags to be had and a good amount of guys will be able to hunt. I think this will help spread out the hunters as well so that certain areas don't continue to get hammered. This is a very rough concept and would need some tweaks and fine tuning but I think it COULD work if done properly. Of course this is on the assumption that people would follow the rules and that poaching wouldn't be a big issue, which is a whole different monster.
Post by: 300rum on November 04, 2013, 03:30:18 PM
I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
Seriously? So you'd get to hunt elk like 4-5 times in your life? Not me.
Post by: Reidus on November 04, 2013, 04:37:48 PM
Post by: Jimmy33 on November 04, 2013, 04:46:10 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on November 04, 2013, 05:53:54 PM
If you only hunt Washington......I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
Seriously? So you'd get to hunt elk like 4-5 times in your life? Not me.
I understand and I'm looking into getting into the out of state elk hunting myself but I don't think that's a cool solution across the board :twocents:
Post by: bobdog86 on November 04, 2013, 06:36:28 PM
I have hunted the Blues for twenty years, my dad for many more than that. We have both applied for a bull permit in units in the Blues with a combined total of over 50 years, can you guess how many times we have been drawn? 00000000000000000000. I wouldn't want a permit system just to hunt as others have suggested as the state has a proven track record of not drawing based on points, on years put in for the draw, it's a total joke and a huge money maker to the state.While I agree, a break between deer season and elk is a good idea, the notion of shutting the blues down for a few years to build the herd would only accomplish one thing……..It would definitely make it easier for the native americans. They take way more than there fare share, as anyone who spends any amount of time in the mountains can attest. Imagine closing the mountains so only they have access? not logical.
The spike unit system has its peaks and its downs. The main idea behind it I believe was to increase the herd size. Where I hunt in the blues, (Really close to Oregon and pretty far east) the herd size hasn't increased inside the fence for many many years. Record book bulls have increased. Cow numbers haven't. Number of people poaching has went up though. Have you ever sat near a road from dusk till dawn and notice how many guys drive into the mountains? It is an insane amount and there not all there just to see the moon.
Recently the number of Elk inside and outside the fence has increased though with the elk being pushed from Idaho. Hopefully in years to come it will become common to see different herds of elk and be able to see a spike every year and not just every 30 years.
The solution I have would be to shut down the Blues and other spike only units for five or so years and let the herds build up. Anybody caught in the mountains in that time with a rifle not during a deer season should be accused of poaching to help limit some of the herd lose. I also wouldn't mind to see the season pushed back a week to give the mountains some time to calm down from deer season.
Post by: Snakeriver10 on November 04, 2013, 09:01:58 PM
Really, you don't think the whites take more than their fair share? This argument needs to end, its a stupid, stupid point to make. (I am white and do get upset at some of the Indians ways they have it, but this argument is absolutely insane to even bring up.........)
Post by: bobdog86 on November 04, 2013, 09:26:04 PM
"It would definitely make it easier for the native americans."….. no more insane than closing the mountains for "5 years or so", which with your logic means a tax paying, law abiding citizen wouldn't be able to either bear hunt, cougar hunt legally in the national forest (or are including the entire Blue Mountains?). Yes, I agree with you, no doubt whites take plenty, both legally and illegally. But closing the mountains for a period of time, isn't the answer. Besides, we all know the state would never give up a cash cow, like our licensing/permit system.
Really, you don't think the whites take more than their fair share? This argument needs to end, its a stupid, stupid point to make. (I am white and do get upset at some of the Indians ways they have it, but this argument is absolutely insane to even bring up.........)
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on November 04, 2013, 09:37:28 PM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Post by: krism83 on November 04, 2013, 10:17:29 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: 300rum on November 05, 2013, 09:32:37 AM
But, then again, I can be out in the woods in September without a tag and that makes me happy too.
If you only hunt Washington......I would rather have an opportunity to hunt a nice bull every 10-12 years then kill a spike every year.
Seriously? So you'd get to hunt elk like 4-5 times in your life? Not me.
I understand and I'm looking into getting into the out of state elk hunting myself but I don't think that's a cool solution across the board :twocents:
Post by: Easy-E on November 05, 2013, 09:51:53 AM
:twocents:
Cheers!
Post by: TheHunt on November 05, 2013, 10:56:42 AM
But this is all worthless as ALL the Native Tribes will not play and enforce the idea to get bigger bulls in this state.
That is a dream... In reality I would support the WDFW should just open up the entire state for over the counter bulls and manage the cows. Then work through the courts with ALL the Native Tribes a new treaty for elk and deer.
Post by: kentrek on November 05, 2013, 11:52:42 AM
Sorry if that seemed like a jab at road hunters but they have got to be the majority of folks who don't fill tags
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2013, 12:16:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on November 05, 2013, 12:17:46 PM
So what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag ? If wa goes draw only on the west side il be going to oregon..don't limit my hunting oppertunities just cuz other people can't manage to find elk :twocents:
Sorry if that seemed like a jab at road hunters but they have got to be the majority of folks who don't fill tags
:yeah: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on November 05, 2013, 12:22:21 PM
Quote
So what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag?
They wait their turn like everybody else. Same as in all the other states that elk hunting is by draw only.
Post by: kentrek on November 05, 2013, 12:33:09 PM
QuoteSo what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag?
They wait their turn like everybody else. Same as in all the other states that elk hunting is by draw only.
Why should I have to wait again ? Cuz "some people" are not having what they want even tho what they want is out there an all they gota do is go get it.....that's why I'm not gona be allowed to kill trophy bulls every year ??
Just ranting nothing personal... :tup:
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 05, 2013, 04:35:31 PM
logical aint it... If I cpuldnt chase branch bulls every year I'd be completely done with the state.QuoteSo what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag?
They wait their turn like everybody else. Same as in all the other states that elk hunting is by draw only.
Why should I have to wait again ? Cuz "some people" are not having what they want even tho what they want is out there an all they gota do is go get it.....that's why I'm not gona be allowed to kill trophy bulls every year ??
Just ranting nothing personal... :tup:
Post by: pashok23 on November 05, 2013, 04:40:15 PM
If we go permit only you will be sitting on the sideline for along time wishing you could hunt.. Wanting to hunt bulls go to CO, MT, OR, WY, ETC. Be happy that you can hunt each year.:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Post by: LarMar14 on November 08, 2013, 09:39:50 PM
Post by: pendoreilleadventures on November 08, 2013, 11:27:20 PM
Sent from my C6750 using Tapatalk
Post by: norsepeak on November 09, 2013, 08:34:00 AM
How come people always say that the big bulls need to breed the rag horns and spikes have the same genes as the big boys...doesn't matter age or antler size bulls genetics are there day one.
Sent from my C6750 using Tapatalk
You are correct, the genetic material is there from day one. The notion of the "big bulls" doing the breeding was from a time when natural selection was the law of the land. It isn't anymore. It used to be the biggest, baddest, smartest bulls would be the ones to survive the predators and be the most desirable for breeding to pass on the genes and traits that allowed them to survive. It doesn't apply anymore because the human predator is not limited by their cunning or fitness like a four legged predator would be. We can nail a big bull from across a canyon that might have survived many years just dealing with four legged predators. So now even though "raghorns" are doing a majority of the breeding, it doesn't effect the genetic makeup of the heard too badly. Yeah it's not ideal, but it's what we have.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on November 09, 2013, 09:17:33 AM
It is funny to me how I hear about crowding, but never see other hunters back in behind closed gates.So what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag ? If wa goes draw only on the west side il be going to oregon..don't limit my hunting oppertunities just cuz other people can't manage to find elk :twocents:
Sorry if that seemed like a jab at road hunters but they have got to be the majority of folks who don't fill tags
:yeah: :chuckle:
I met a guy from Wisconsin who wanted to harvest a Roosevelt with his longbow (he made himself).
After looking at harvest reports, picked the unit I hunt.
Came out in 2011 and hiked in one of the gates near our camp, and got into some Elk but was unable to harvest one.
Came back this year with a mountain bike, rode into same area and shot a decent 5pt on second day of season.
Commented on how he was surprised that he did not see any other hunters.
Then I overheard another hunter comment on how "lucky" he was, but this hunter rarely got more than a mile from camp, or spend more than an hour or two in the woods.
I am always amazed at how many "Elk Hunters" I meet who spend more time riding around in their trucks than actually hunting, and complaining that there are no elk.
And the areas that they do get out of their trucks, is because one jumped the road in front of them.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on November 09, 2013, 09:22:55 AM
I also have witnessed spikes and raghorns doing the breeding while the herd bull is chasing off other raghorns and spikes than actually breeding himself.How come people always say that the big bulls need to breed the rag horns and spikes have the same genes as the big boys...doesn't matter age or antler size bulls genetics are there day one.
Sent from my C6750 using Tapatalk
You are correct, the genetic material is there from day one. The notion of the "big bulls" doing the breeding was from a time when natural selection was the law of the land. It isn't anymore. It used to be the biggest, baddest, smartest bulls would be the ones to survive the predators and be the most desirable for breeding to pass on the genes and traits that allowed them to survive. It doesn't apply anymore because the human predator is not limited by their cunning or fitness like a four legged predator would be. We can nail a big bull from across a canyon that might have survived many years just dealing with four legged predators. So now even though "raghorns" are doing a majority of the breeding, it doesn't effect the genetic makeup of the heard too badly. Yeah it's not ideal, but it's what we have.
High bull/cow ratios improve genetic diversity, large bulls only demonstrate what genes are available.
Post by: soccerftw123 on November 26, 2013, 11:20:51 PM
Thats not my problem i got into many elk at bow range this year only problem is cant find a spike, had bulls and cows in bow rangeIt is funny to me how I hear about crowding, but never see other hunters back in behind closed gates.So what about the guys that bust tail to kill nice bulls every year ? They just kinda get the shaft until they draw a tag because the road hunters can't seem to fill a tag ? If wa goes draw only on the west side il be going to oregon..don't limit my hunting oppertunities just cuz other people can't manage to find elk :twocents:
Sorry if that seemed like a jab at road hunters but they have got to be the majority of folks who don't fill tags
:yeah: :chuckle:
I met a guy from Wisconsin who wanted to harvest a Roosevelt with his longbow (he made himself).
After looking at harvest reports, picked the unit I hunt.
Came out in 2011 and hiked in one of the gates near our camp, and got into some Elk but was unable to harvest one.
Came back this year with a mountain bike, rode into same area and shot a decent 5pt on second day of season.
Commented on how he was surprised that he did not see any other hunters.
Then I overheard another hunter comment on how "lucky" he was, but this hunter rarely got more than a mile from camp, or spend more than an hour or two in the woods.
I am always amazed at how many "Elk Hunters" I meet who spend more time riding around in their trucks than actually hunting, and complaining that there are no elk.
And the areas that they do get out of their trucks, is because one jumped the road in front of them.
Post by: stuckalot on November 27, 2013, 07:51:51 AM
As far as spike rules go there are actually many sound reasons for it. Primarily the very high natural mortality rate for calves and spikes. If sustainability is the goal for a herd harvesting spikes and calves has the least impact on the heard because many of them will die any way.
Post by: sakoshooter on November 27, 2013, 09:34:26 PM
If we go permit only you will be sitting on the sideline for along time wishing you could hunt.. Wanting to hunt bulls go to CO, MT, OR, WY, ETC. Be happy that you can hunt each year.
:yeah:
Thank you! Somebody with some sense!
Agreed
Post by: kerrdog on November 28, 2013, 08:14:29 AM
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 08:49:59 AM
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
Post by: bobdog86 on November 28, 2013, 09:05:00 AM
Lets do away with scopes and high power rifles. (except for the old and disabled) :chuckle: Actually I'd never want to impose my opinion on others. But that would work, right? Bow and Muzzleloader only. :IBCOOL:Sure, Long bows only (nothing metallic) and only traditional, real flintlock smoke poles.
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 28, 2013, 08:30:35 PM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.I think it can work but I go hard for mine year in year out and am successful year in year out. I don't consider myself any better of a hunter than the rest, but I do consider myself more hard working than the most. Why should I have to suffer?
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 08:50:57 PM
Also, if you don't draw one year don't you think a friend or family member might draw and you could go along to help? You'd still get to hunt, you just wouldn't be the one to pull the trigger.
I don't know but there are options. Just think of all the people in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona who "suffer" more often than not.
I just seems to me that proper management of this state's elk is more important than every single hunter being allowed to kill an elk every year.
Post by: rtspring on November 28, 2013, 08:57:02 PM
2. If you don't like the hunting in Washington, you can go hunt one of your "permit only" states.
3. If it ever does go permit only, those that bote it in. It wont improve hunting, only for those that dont use our regs will benefit..
4. It is what it is.. Too many people not enough animals..
Post by: deaner on November 28, 2013, 08:59:39 PM
Why should you have to suffer? Kind of a silly question to ask. Actually it's likely you could still hunt every year if you apply for areas that are difficult to access (wilderness.)
Also, if you don't draw one year don't you think a friend or family member might draw and you could go along to help? You'd still get to hunt, you just wouldn't be the one to pull the trigger.
I don't know but there are options. Just think of all the people in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona who "suffer" more often than not.
I just seems to me that proper management of this state's elk is more important than every single hunter being allowed to kill an elk every year.
proper management of this states elk? i think that more aggressive predator control options would do a lot more for our elk numbers than more restrictive hunt opportunities.
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 09:01:22 PM
Quote
2. If you don't like the hunting in Washington, you can go hunt one of your "permit only" states.
I will always hunt this state as long as I live here. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with the states method of so called "wildlife management."
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 09:06:58 PM
Quote
proper management of this states elk? i think that more aggressive predator control options would do a lot more for our elk numbers than more restrictive hunt opportunities.
Great idea but I don't see anything with predator management changing anytime soon. Do you? The fact is the only real change that can be made to increase deer and elk numbers, AND to improve the quality of our hunts, is to limit the number of hunters by GMU. Just as many other states do. States that have more hunters than surplus game, like this state. So why are we so different that we can have unlimited numbers of tags, with no way to control where all those people hunt?
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 28, 2013, 09:08:02 PM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.I don't think there is a truly reasonable answer bobcat as to why.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
The majority of elk hunters want the opportunity to hunt every year. It may be just that simple, right there.
That same majority complains about over crowding but refuses to want to give up their annual tag opportunities.
Personally, I think that a system like if your hunter ID # ends with an odd number, you get the odd years. Even gets even. Should wind up being relatively close to cutting the hunters afield in half I would guess. Youths, seniors, and possibly disabled and active in-state stationed military get an exemption on the odd/even.
The driving force in something like this would be revenue generation. If the WDFW allowed everyone to still make permit applications, and if successful they were exempt from the odd/even, the WDFW may not suffer too much on the revenue take side.
The WDFW needs to step away from the thought of managing for opportunity (revenue) and manage for a quality hunting experience before anything will ever change.
Post by: rtspring on November 28, 2013, 09:13:31 PM
The elk are doing great in my unit, deer numbers are on the rebound and getting close to the early 90'S
I have no problem hunting spikes. By going permit only you still won't kill an animal every time you have a tag...
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 28, 2013, 09:19:24 PM
Why should you have to suffer? Kind of a silly question to ask. Actually it's likely you could still hunt every year if you apply for areas that are difficult to access (wilderness.)If I can't kill an elk every year I'm done here. Selfish? maybe, but I'm tired of people whining how crappy hunting is in this state. Its like people expect to drive down the roads and see herds of elk everywhere. I got news for yall hunting does not suck here! I don't agree on much with rtspring, but this I do. I don't want to be forced into wilderness areas because a lot of people think hunting should be easy. If I go with a friend, my freezer won't be full to the next season. Bottom line play the hand your dealt, get off your butts and go get them, they are here, there are areas that there aren't many people. Don't like it? Go somewhere else, don't ruin it for those of us that bust our asses to be successful every year.
Also, if you don't draw one year don't you think a friend or family member might draw and you could go along to help? You'd still get to hunt, you just wouldn't be the one to pull the trigger.
I don't know but there are options. Just think of all the people in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona who "suffer" more often than not.
I just seems to me that proper management of this state's elk is more important than every single hunter being allowed to kill an elk every year.
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 28, 2013, 09:21:38 PM
Winner winner chicken dinner! Bingo!
I have no problem hunting spikes. By going permit only you still won't kill an animal every time you have a tag...
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 09:32:03 PM
Post by: deaner on November 28, 2013, 09:40:11 PM
my core area has a very small elk [population well below its carrying capacity. almost nobody hunts elk here. even most of the people who live here have never seen an elk around and many of them dont believe we have them. that being said, there is virtually no hunter pressure / harvest on the local elk, yet the population remains small and the recruitment is very poor. its a predator problem. decreasing the number of hunters here would do nothing, the only thing that would help the elk numbers in this area is better predator control options. do i think its going to happen? not at all, but that IS the answer.
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 28, 2013, 09:41:02 PM
The reason for going to permit only would be number 1- to limit hunting pressure and decrease harvest. This would lead to higher numbers of elk, at least in areas that have the carrying capacity for more animals. It's pretty selfish in my opinion to think that you deserve to kill an elk every single year, when the average hunter in this state kills an elk once every twenty years. It's not about making it more "easy." It would be about managing each GMU by limiting the harvest, which they DO NOT do now. The distribution of hunters is 100% random, the WDFW does not control that in any way. As more and more of the private timber company land goes to access by permit only, the problem is going to get worse. If you hunt public land expect to have a lot more company in the future!Why does the average hunter kill one only every twenty years? Do they study maps? Are they making 15-20 scouting trips per season? Are they running multiple cameras in different areas? Are they constantly looking to improve their situation? Does the thought of why elk do what they do cross their minds daily? I doubt they are. Oppertunity is at your finger tips, go get it!
I will agree this timber company thing is going to create a major problem. Something does need to be done about that.
Post by: bobcat on November 28, 2013, 09:43:15 PM
Again, why do other states feel the need to manage by permit only hunting? Other states that actually have more elk and less people than we do? But we don't need to do that here? Why are we so different that we can continue on with basically the same management system that we've had since the 1950's?
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 28, 2013, 09:46:08 PM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
It's called, WDFW.
Post by: Button Nubbs on November 28, 2013, 09:50:25 PM
The main reason the success rate is so low is there are too many hunters! Period. Not enough elk.If that was is the case then why are there people (several on this site) who are successful every year? Itdosent seem to be a problem with the lack of elk, more so the lack of effort. Well just have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. :chuckle:
Again, why do other states feel the need to manage by permit only hunting? Other states that actually have more elk and less people than we do? But we don't need to do that here? Why are we so different that we can continue on with basically the same management system that we've had since the 1950's?
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 28, 2013, 09:58:00 PM
:chuckle:The main reason the success rate is so low is there are too many hunters! Period. Not enough elk.If that was is the case then why are there people (several on this site) who are successful every year? Itdosent seem to be a problem with the lack of elk, more so the lack of effort. Well just have to agree to disagree on this one I guess. :chuckle:
Again, why do other states feel the need to manage by permit only hunting? Other states that actually have more elk and less people than we do? But we don't need to do that here? Why are we so different that we can continue on with basically the same management system that we've had since the 1950's?
And some of us are very successful here and out of state but we don't talk about it very much. 8)
:chuckle:
Post by: stuckalot on November 28, 2013, 10:00:30 PM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.I don't think there is a truly reasonable answer bobcat as to why.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
The majority of elk hunters want the opportunity to hunt every year. It may be just that simple, right there.
The WDFW needs to step away from the thought of managing for opportunity (revenue) and manage for a quality hunting experience before anything will ever change.
By whose definition of "quality"? And yes so far all of the surveys wdfw has done have shown that people would rather have the opportunity to hunt spikes every year than wait for the opportunity for a "quality" hunt every few years. Which herds in this state are not meeting objectives currently due to hunter harvest?
Post by: 6x6in6 on November 28, 2013, 10:15:42 PM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.I don't think there is a truly reasonable answer bobcat as to why.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
The majority of elk hunters want the opportunity to hunt every year. It may be just that simple, right there.
The WDFW needs to step away from the thought of managing for opportunity (revenue) and manage for a quality hunting experience before anything will ever change.
By whose definition of "quality"?
Mine.
You cherry picked out the points of my post for your comments and questions like I just did. But if you had left the whole thing there, you might have caught the "Personally" lead in that I had.
Post by: soccerftw123 on December 05, 2013, 08:10:25 PM
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on December 05, 2013, 10:46:46 PM
The reason for going to permit only would be number 1- to limit hunting pressure and decrease harvest. This would lead to higher numbers of elk, at least in areas that have the carrying capacity for more animals. It's pretty selfish in my opinion to think that you deserve to kill an elk every single year, when the average hunter in this state kills an elk once every twenty years. It's not about making it more "easy." It would be about managing each GMU by limiting the harvest, which they DO NOT do now. The distribution of hunters is 100% random, the WDFW does not control that in any way. As more and more of the private timber company land goes to access by permit only, the problem is going to get worse. If you hunt public land expect to have a lot more company in the future!
Sorry I don't tend to get into arguments but this statement in bold is probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen. I understand this is your opinion but for one where the heck do you get those numbers from? And two I'm willing to bet that most of those average hunters you talk about are road hunters which probably means that a high percentage of them won't shoot an elk year in and year out!
Post by: bobcat on December 05, 2013, 11:06:02 PM
The reason for going to permit only would be number 1- to limit hunting pressure and decrease harvest. This would lead to higher numbers of elk, at least in areas that have the carrying capacity for more animals. It's pretty selfish in my opinion to think that you deserve to kill an elk every single year, when the average hunter in this state kills an elk once every twenty years. It's not about making it more "easy." It would be about managing each GMU by limiting the harvest, which they DO NOT do now. The distribution of hunters is 100% random, the WDFW does not control that in any way. As more and more of the private timber company land goes to access by permit only, the problem is going to get worse. If you hunt public land expect to have a lot more company in the future!
Sorry I don't tend to get into arguments but this statement in bold is probably one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen. I understand this is your opinion but for one where the heck do you get those numbers from? And two I'm willing to bet that most of those average hunters you talk about are road hunters which probably means that a high percentage of them won't shoot an elk year in and year out!
You can look at the harvest reports if you want numbers. But the point is, this state has too many hunters and not enough elk. Period. Why else do we have spike only seasons on the eastside? And here on the westside units that are so crowded that I don't see how anyone could possibly enjoy their hunt.
Again, why is it that states with more elk and less people than we have here, have had to resort to permit only elk hunting, yet we continue to have over the counter tags and general seasons that have no limitations whatsoever on the number of hunters in each GMU at a particular time.
There are people who have said they feel they deserve to hunt elk every single year. Why? That's what I'm questioning. Just because someone is able to kill an elk every year means he should be allowed to hunt every year? That makes no sense but that seems to be what a lot of people are saying. And that's what I said seemed selfish to me.
And yes, that is only my opinion. I sure don't think it's "ridiculous" and I think a lot of people feel the same way. This is why many people don't hunt elk in this state but instead go to other states. The elk management in this state is a total joke.
Post by: splitshot on December 05, 2013, 11:19:40 PM
Post by: kentrek on December 06, 2013, 11:18:40 AM
I know its a complete different topic but its all resource allocation
Just a thought
Post by: Heredoggydoggy on December 06, 2013, 11:25:37 AM
what elk, the so called master hunters shot all of them. mike w
And the few they missed will be eaten by wolves. Soon you won't have to worry about hunting elk. There won't be any...
Post by: PA BEN on December 07, 2013, 07:50:15 AM
:yeah:If we go permit only you will be sitting on the sideline for along time wishing you could hunt.. Wanting to hunt bulls go to CO, MT, OR, WY, ETC. Be happy that you can hunt each year.
:yeah:
Thank you! Somebody with some sense!
Post by: dvolmer on December 10, 2013, 03:07:38 PM
Post by: gonehuntin68 on December 10, 2013, 06:41:51 PM
The idea behind the spike only rule is that 90% of spikes die annually. Some from hunting, some from just being young and dumb. It's just a fact of life.
I have been hunting the BLues since '96 or '97 and can tell you the spike only rule does not hurt the bull numbers. In my opinion the largest factor on the # of mature bulls are the indians. If you don't believe me take a drive to the Blues in late September and see for your self.
I would also love to see Eastern WA go to a draw only for any antlered elk.
:yeah:
Post by: JM on December 10, 2013, 08:59:05 PM
Post by: jstone on December 10, 2013, 09:20:57 PM
Post by: Houndhunter on December 10, 2013, 09:33:08 PM
Post by: GoPlayOutside on December 10, 2013, 09:50:55 PM
We have a huge population compared to the size of our state, and the geographic locations of the elk. The elk masses are found on the west coast and the central wa. mountain range. Come time for the "very limited" hunting seasons, the whole hunting population head to the same general areas to hunt.
Wash. needs to limit tags per unit (maybe first come, first serve...like Idaho). I'm not saying a very limited amount of tags...but do something.
However, WDFW seems to only work on behalf of their Revenue Dept., with less concern for their game management.
Post by: ScottyG on December 11, 2013, 11:42:31 AM
Where is the big problem? 400 inch bulls? 200 inch bucks?
The elk are doing great in my unit, deer numbers are on the rebound and getting close to the early 90'S
I have no problem hunting spikes. By going permit only you still won't kill an animal every time you have a tag...
I'm with RT on this one. I've been hunting the same area in WA for 30+ years. There are more big bulls wandering our area's hills today than at any time since we started. At the beginning, it was very rare to see a bull and rarer still to see a truly big bull. Then things went to spike only tags and draw tags for big bulls. I believe overall elk numbers are higher now than at any time in those 30 years. I'm convinced the spike only seasons with limited big bull draw tags is the reason for the improvement in the number of bulls and the overall herd quality.
I'd trade the antler restriction for a healthy heard and the opportunity to just see the big boys on an annual basis. You don't really have to kill them to appreciate them. Spikes and cows taste better anyway. Most of the recent years, I don't think that anyone that hunts out of our camp comes away feeling that they experienced poor hunting. Usually, its quite the opposite with many stories of the huge bulls. People new to our camp always ask why there is a spike only limit when it seems like there are more branch bulls in our area than spikes. Then we tell them what it used to be like and they understand.
I hunt both Washington and Oregon, so I see how both sytems work. I hunt WA more than I hunt Oregon because I grew up there and my family members all hunt WA. Oregon does give me the opportunity to hunt a big bull every 2-3 years on it's east side, but I can't really say that its better hunting than where I hunt in Washington from the standpoint of number of animals seen or lack of hunting pressure. I'll admit that horn hunting has merit but its certainly not the only measure of a worthy hunt. If you were to visit some of the different Oregon hunting internet chat sites, you'd see that many, many Oregonians are very disgruntled with the state of the hunting and herds in Oregon with most of the same concerns... poaching, predators, treaty hunting, too many roads, too much privatized land, too many hunters etc. A common complaint is about point creep in the draw system down here. The grass is somewhat different on the other side of the state line, but I'm not certain I'd say its better.
My opinion is that WA has got it very close to right in their method of allocation of elk tags... for WA's situation. The improvement in elk herd numbers and big bull counts in the area I hunt speaks to the appropriateness of the rules.
For those that wish to hunt branched antlers every year, it does mean making a commitment to the west side brush, NE corner, or investing time and resources in an out of state trip. That is neither the end of the world or an unsolvable problem.
If its the hunting pressure that's got you upset, that can usually be solved with a little research and getting comfortable with hiking for about an hour in the dark.
Post by: WSU on December 11, 2013, 11:53:43 AM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
It works in Oregon because there are a lot more elk and a lot less people. Many of the draw units are very easy to draw. And, the westside is mostly general season with no draw. Oregon just has a lot more options.
Post by: bobcat on December 11, 2013, 11:57:54 AM
Several other states (including Oregon) have permit only hunting for deer/elk, and it hasn't stopped kids from hunting in those states.
I have to ask- why is it that a system like that works in other states but some people insist it can't work here?
I've asked this question before and never have heard any reasonable answers.
It works in Oregon because there are a lot more elk and a lot less people. Many of the draw units are very easy to draw. And, the westside is mostly general season with no draw. Oregon just has a lot more options.
Which is why we have even more reason to distribute and limit hunters in a more managed way, rather than the random, free for all it is now.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
Post by: csaaphill on December 11, 2013, 12:07:28 PM
That said I'd like them to change things up, but not permit only crap Oregon sucks! for how they manage their hunting. seems like it's pretty much first come first served when it comes to who gets deer and elk permits.
I like it over the counter leave it alone! >:(
Post by: ScottyG on December 18, 2013, 01:10:54 PM
Attached is a pretty good example of the kind of dialogue that you can find among Oregonians related to the Oregon draw system.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Post by: pd on December 18, 2013, 01:33:48 PM
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537)
Attached is a pretty good example of the kind of dialogue that you can find among Oregonians related to the Oregon draw system.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Thank you for posting that link! Very informative. The grass really isn't greener on the other side of the river.
Post by: KopperBuck on December 18, 2013, 02:12:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 02:16:41 PM
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537)
Attached is a pretty good example of the kind of dialogue that you can find among Oregonians related to the Oregon draw system.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Thank you for posting that link! Very informative. The grass really isn't greener on the other side of the river.
Actually, it is. They have much better hunting than we do, and that's due mostly because they have draw only hunts for deer and elk on the east side of the state.
If you read the ifish thread you would have seen that many of the posts are saying they would like to do away with the general season hunts and make EVERYTHING by draw only, including archery hunts and deer and elk on the west side of the state.
Post by: et1702 on December 18, 2013, 02:34:22 PM
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537)
Attached is a pretty good example of the kind of dialogue that you can find among Oregonians related to the Oregon draw system.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Thank you for posting that link! Very informative. The grass really isn't greener on the other side of the river.
Actually, it is. They have much better hunting than we do, and that's due mostly because they have draw only hunts for deer and elk on the east side of the state.
If you read the ifish thread you would have seen that many of the posts are saying they would like to do away with the general season hunts and make EVERYTHING by draw only, including archery hunts and deer and elk on the west side of the state.
Deer on east side of Oregon is draw only. But, there are several over-the-counter eastside areas where you can hunt bull elk every year with a bow.
Bob, I agree that WDFW is doing a terrible job managing our elk and deer resources. But, I definitely disagree with "draw only" for everybody east and west in WA. As Dave V. mentioned, the issue really isn't necessarily number of animals, it's number of people we have in this state! Too many!!! If we went to draw only everywhere, the best units would be just like trying to draw a "Quality Tag" and the remaining units would still be overcrowded vs. number of available critters (i.e., large number of hunters jammed into a small range of productive habitat).
ET
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 02:56:44 PM
Because they are doing a great job for the people who want to hunt deer and elk every single year, whether there are any animals to shoot or not.
In this state there is no need for planning ahead. Buy your deer and elk tags at anytime, even during the season, and hunt any GMU in the entire state. Well, in the case of elk you do have to pick east or west.
But that's it. That is the entire management scheme, that's how they manage the number of hunters in each GMU, and that is how the WDFW regulates the number of animals harvested by GMU. Which is to say, they DO NOT manage. All they do is sell licenses and tags. They're not concerned with excessive harvest in certain units.
You're right- we do have too many people in this state- too many people who want to hunt deer and elk every single year! And that is why we need some kind of management to limit the number of hunters by Game Management Unit.
Post by: buckfvr on December 18, 2013, 03:24:57 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on December 18, 2013, 03:38:37 PM
Post by: BOHNTR on December 18, 2013, 04:07:19 PM
The point system is OK however it takes on average 10-12 years to get drawn.
Post by: ScottyG on December 18, 2013, 04:47:51 PM
http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537 (http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?t=569537)
Attached is a pretty good example of the kind of dialogue that you can find among Oregonians related to the Oregon draw system.
The grass is not always greener on the other side.
Thank you for posting that link! Very informative. The grass really isn't greener on the other side of the river.
Actually, it is. They have much better hunting than we do, and that's due mostly because they have draw only hunts for deer and elk on the east side of the state.
If you read the ifish thread you would have seen that many of the posts are saying they would like to do away with the general season hunts and make EVERYTHING by draw only, including archery hunts and deer and elk on the west side of the state.
Well, that is certainly one interpretation of the content and value of that string, but its not the only interpretation. Many of the posts are about the unhappiness of people with the Oregon draw system and about the hunting being a shadow of what it once was. Oregon's system is no panacea. Its just a different way of dolling out an ever shrinking pie to an ever growing number of people who want a piece. The Oregon system has created a hunter base that is just as disgruntled with ODFW and the ODFW system as the people on this forum seem to be, in general, with the WDFW and the WDFW system for allocating tags and managing the resource. My only reason for posting was to point out to all the people that think Oregon is the land of great hunting and great hunting opportunity, that many Oregonians would completely disagree.
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 05:00:34 PM
Quote
My only reason for posting was to point out to all the people that think Oregon is the land of great hunting and great hunting opportunity, that many Oregonians would completely disagree.
I understand. But see, those people that aren't happy with the hunting in Oregon probably haven't hunted here! And they're unhappy because of the perceived mis-management, but at least the ODFW attempts to manage the resource, by allocating a certain number of tags to each unit. Whereas the WDFW does no such thing.
In fact the WDFW is so hell bent on selling as many tags as possible that they allow people to purchase their deer and elk tags AFTER they kill an animal. (No, not legal but it happens since there is no deadline to buy your tags)
Post by: KopperBuck on December 18, 2013, 05:31:12 PM
QuoteMy only reason for posting was to point out to all the people that think Oregon is the land of great hunting and great hunting opportunity, that many Oregonians would completely disagree.
I understand. But see, those people that aren't happy with the hunting in Oregon probably haven't hunted here! And they're unhappy because of the perceived mis-management, but at least the ODFW attempts to manage the resource, by allocating a certain number of tags to each unit. Whereas the WDFW does no such thing.
In fact the WDFW is so hell bent on selling as many tags as possible that they allow people to purchase their deer and elk tags AFTER they kill an animal. (No, not legal but it happens since there is no deadline to buy your tags)
I've hunted both my whole life, there's benefits to both. Point creep in Oregon is atrocious. You don't have to declare a weapon, so folks put in for tough units, don't draw, and then pick up a bow. Or for deer, those on the WETside put in over here, don't draw, and hunt general over there. I've given up on thinking about drawing some of the harder units, and probably be 10-15 yrs before I draw a goat tag. I like the sheep and goat format.
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 05:42:07 PM
Post by: et1702 on December 18, 2013, 05:44:17 PM
I'm not sure how you can say the WDFW is doing a terrible job if you agree with the unlimited tags, and no management whatsoever system the WDFW is currently using.
Because they are doing a great job for the people who want to hunt deer and elk every single year, whether there are any animals to shoot or not.
In this state there is no need for planning ahead. Buy your deer and elk tags at anytime, even during the season, and hunt any GMU in the entire state. Well, in the case of elk you do have to pick east or west.
But that's it. That is the entire management scheme, that's how they manage the number of hunters in each GMU, and that is how the WDFW regulates the number of animals harvested by GMU. Which is to say, they DO NOT manage. All they do is sell licenses and tags. They're not concerned with excessive harvest in certain units.
You're right- we do have too many people in this state- too many people who want to hunt deer and elk every single year! And that is why we need some kind of management to limit the number of hunters by Game Management Unit.
They do manage it by making us choose our weapon (Archery, ML or Modern). Based on the percentage of each user group, they also allow more open units (i.e., rifle gets greater number than archery, archery = > number than ML). As an archery guy, I really only have three or four eastside elk units that I can hunt each year, and only a couple of those open to cow or spike. Yes, i know there are more than 3 or 4 units open on the east side, but if I'm going to drive all the way to the NE corner, I might as well pick up an Idaho tag too...LOL. Plus, the percentage of Bull tags or Buck tags, Sheep, etc. are based on the hunter success of each group and the number of hunters. Plus, the overall number of hunters in WA leveled out several years ago and has been dropping. The issue w/ too many people is that there are too many other user groups that are competing w/hunters now, too much private property, too much pay for access, too many wolves, no real regulation of native american harvest numbers or practices, etc, etc, etc.
It's a very complicated issue. But, in no way do we have unlimited tags in WA. If it was unlimited, I'd be able to hunt all three weapon seasons and pick any unit statewide that I wanted to hunt. Guess what, I still remember being able to do this 30 to 40+ years ago growing up in New Mex and AZ. Not possible anymore due to population growth and other user groups in these states as well as all other western US states. the main problem I have w/WDFW is that they really don't know how many critters of each species we actually have in this state. When was the last time they did a real population survey, instead of just a quick fly-over? It's been a very long time. Also, can anyone tell me why the wolf biologist is also the Mule deer bio in the Winthrop/Okanogon area. Seems like a BIG conflict of interest to me!
ET
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 05:54:05 PM
Post by: KopperBuck on December 18, 2013, 05:57:12 PM
Point creep....yep and that's why people on ifish were saying they need to do away with ALL the general seasons including archery. Make it all permit only. That way people can't continue to hunt every year while building up points for some of the better hunts.
I don't agree with getting your 2nd - 4th choices and keeping your points. Or how about building points while taking LOP tags (I'm guilty....).
Post by: KopperBuck on December 18, 2013, 05:58:56 PM
Post by: Alan K on December 18, 2013, 06:11:59 PM
Open general season in the region you live in, permit only for other regions. :yike:
Man, wouldn't that be nice! :drool:
Post by: kentrek on December 18, 2013, 06:25:47 PM
Lets just raise the price of tags to 10x the current amount..the folks that view hunting as a priority will fork out the coin every year an the ones that don't ( road hunters) won't even go hunting thus reducing the hunting presure significantly..the ones who can't afford it on a yearly based will just have to save there pennies until one day being able cash in an get a tag..
While this was written in sarcasm font its resembles the same outcome as a draw only system
The funny thing about resource allocation is there's many way to achieve the same result so why chose a method that cuts oppertunity ??
Post by: bobcat on December 18, 2013, 06:41:42 PM
Quote
The funny thing about resource allocation is there's many way to achieve the same result so why chose a method that cuts oppertunity ??
What method is there that would reduce the number of hunters in the field and NOT reduce opportunity? ???
Post by: kentrek on December 18, 2013, 07:01:02 PM
QuoteThe funny thing about resource allocation is there's many way to achieve the same result so why chose a method that cuts oppertunity ??
What method is there that would reduce the number of hunters in the field and NOT reduce opportunity? ???
Its a density problem (or demand problem for you econ guys)
To decrease density you must increase the area...to decrease demand you must increase supply..
Open up more areas for people to hunt every year an people will spread out thus reducing the over all hunting pressure for each area...so yes I'm referring to removing permit areas..I beleive this would have the same impact to the elk herd as a permit system yet still give us oppertunity
Just look what has happened with wecco going permit only ? The amount of people forced down south to hunt must have been huge..it only makes sense that the revearse would be just the opposite trend...so why wouldn't it work with opening draw areas aswell ??
Post by: kentrek on December 18, 2013, 07:04:09 PM