Post by: bearpaw on August 13, 2014, 05:41:23 PM
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501-1091
http://wdfw.wa.gov/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/)
August 13, 2014
Contact: WDFW Wildlife Program, (360) 902-2515
WDFW seeks comments, schedules meetings on 2015-17 hunting season proposals
OLYMPIA – The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is seeking comments on proposed alternatives for 2015-17 hunting seasons, and has scheduled several meetings this month to discuss the proposals with the public.
The alternatives will be posted by Aug. 18 on WDFW’s website at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/ (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/) , where people can also provide comments. The Game Management Plan and scoping criteria for the 2015-17 season-setting process is available on the website as well.
WDFW is accepting comments on the alternatives through Sept. 20.
The department has also scheduled a series of public meetings in August to discuss the alternatives. The meetings will run from 7-9 p.m. and are scheduled for:
• Aug. 19 – Spokane: Centerplace Regional Events Center, 2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, Great Room.
• Aug. 20 – Moses Lake: Big Bend Community College ATEC Building, 7611 Bolling St. NE, Moses Lake, Masto Conference Center.
• Aug. 21 – Ellensburg: CWU Campus 400 E University Way, Ellensburg, Wellington’s Event Center.
• Aug. 26 – Everett: Holiday Inn Downtown, 3105 Pine St., Everett, Everett Ball Room 2.
• Aug. 27 – Tacoma: Pacific Grill Event Center, 1530 Pacific Ave., Tacoma, Chinook/Klickitat Conference Room.
• Aug. 28 – Vancouver: Heathman Lodge, 7801 NE Greenwood Dr., Vancouver, Pacific Ballroom.
Issues currently under consideration by the department for upcoming seasons include:
• Setting spring and fall black bear seasons.
• Early archery elk seasons.
• Modern firearm mule deer seasons.
• Hunting equipment, including non-toxic ammunition, expandable broadheads and crossbows.
• Special permit drawings.
• Baiting big game.
Dave Ware, WDFW game program manager, said comments received from the public will be used to develop specific recommendations for 2015-17 hunting seasons, which will be available for further review in January.
Final recommendations will be presented to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission for adoption next spring.
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 13, 2014, 05:59:57 PM
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 13, 2014, 06:19:16 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 06:26:16 PM
Post by: t6 on August 13, 2014, 08:52:57 PM
Imagine people actually taking animals that are mature and allowing the younger / smaller ones reach quality status.
Post by: police women of America on August 13, 2014, 09:06:32 PM
Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:
I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
Post by: Buck_Nasty11 on August 13, 2014, 09:19:34 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 13, 2014, 09:24:08 PM
Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 14, 2014, 07:45:37 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 14, 2014, 08:02:59 AM
Maybe they are considering baiting bears. :dunno: that would be sweet! It seems they got the point on early archery. Expandable broadheads would be sweet but I'm not interested in competing with crossbows during bow season. Hopefully we get some good out of the meetings. Thanks for the post! :tup:
I did submit a proposal along those lines. I can start a new thread with what I submitted if folks are interested and want to comment, criticize, or just trash it all together....
Post by: Peskadot on August 14, 2014, 08:21:17 AM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on August 14, 2014, 08:29:15 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158842.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,158842.0.html)
Post by: police women of America on August 14, 2014, 11:53:49 AM
Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.
Post by: jasnt on August 14, 2014, 12:32:02 PM
Next they will want to fish with bare hooks. Baiting deer, elk, and bears is no guarantee your going to get an animal. It can however improve the quality of the animal the hunter takes by giving them the opportunity to evaluate the animal before shooting.
Imagine people actually taking animals that are mature and allowing the younger / smaller ones reach quality status.
:yeah:
Post by: bearpaw on August 14, 2014, 12:51:45 PM
Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.
It's a controversial issue that some people including some hunters greatly dislike. I think that's why it doesn't get talked about as much as many other issues.
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 15, 2014, 12:04:34 PM
This is the reason I finally joined this forum instead of just reading it all the time. I'm curious if any of you guys submitted proposals to change the special permit draw and if you did what did you propose.
I submitted a proposal to change the ghost point option from 1 point to 2 points and gave my reasons. Did you guys think of anything else?
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2014, 12:07:03 PM
Quote
I submitted a proposal to change the ghost point option from 1 point to 2 points and gave my reasons.
Can you explain what you mean by this?
Post by: Curly on August 15, 2014, 12:09:14 PM
Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.
Even hunter safety instructors at times give out bad information on what is legal or not in WA.
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 15, 2014, 01:09:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2014, 01:14:54 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on August 15, 2014, 02:14:15 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 03:04:32 PM
For baiting they are considering the following alternatives:Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.
It's a controversial issue that some people including some hunters greatly dislike. I think that's why it doesn't get talked about as much as many other issues.
No Change
Banning all big game baiting (deer, elk, sheep, moose, goat)
Banning all big game baiting, except food plots and crops left for wildlife in normal agricultural practices
Banning only guides and outfitters from baiting
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 03:08:21 PM
Early archery elk should be sep 8-21. Not a fan of all mechanicals being allowed but an approved list of the better ones would be great. Baiting deer and elk is a non issue to me and shouldn't be banned.On the archery elk seasons they are considering the following:
1) Standard season datesof September 8th–20th
2) A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
3) A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
4) Switching the current opening dates for early archery and earlymuzzleloader seasons (i.e. archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader huntershunt in September)
5) No change
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2014, 03:27:45 PM
Early archery elk should be sep 8-21. Not a fan of all mechanicals being allowed but an approved list of the better ones would be great. Baiting deer and elk is a non issue to me and shouldn't be banned.On the archery elk seasons they are considering the following:
1) Standard season datesof September 8th–20th
2) A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
3) A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
4) Switching the current opening dates for early archery and earlymuzzleloader seasons (i.e. archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader huntershunt in September)
5) No change
I'd go for number 4! Then we could listen to the muzzleloader hunters complain about their season being too early. :chuckle:
No matter what they do, people will have complaints. I have no doubt about that.
Post by: vandeman17 on August 15, 2014, 03:29:55 PM
As for the early elk dates, I wouldn't mind them going to either the friday or saturday after labor day.
Post by: bobcat on August 15, 2014, 03:33:25 PM
Post by: Peskadot on August 15, 2014, 03:51:11 PM
[/quote]
No matter what they do, people will have complaints. I have no doubt about that.
[/quote]
I agree 100%. But its better when we're happy and they're complaining.
Post by: dreamingbig on August 15, 2014, 05:06:44 PM
Early archery elk should be sep 8-21. Not a fan of all mechanicals being allowed but an approved list of the better ones would be great. Baiting deer and elk is a non issue to me and shouldn't be banned.On the archery elk seasons they are considering the following:
1) Standard season datesof September 8th–20th
2) A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
3) A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
4) Switching the current opening dates for early archery and earlymuzzleloader seasons (i.e. archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader huntershunt in September)
5) No change
4 is absurd. #3 is the best but #1 is a close second.
I only wish they would limit the input to bowhunters. Too much noise from non hunters and other user groups to get useful data via public input.
Post by: Buck_Nasty11 on August 15, 2014, 05:13:12 PM
anybody read the bottom of this where they have an app for the regs at $5.99? :yike: I just go to the site, download the regs and save them to my phone for free. $6 for an app, really?
As for the early elk dates, I wouldn't mind them going to either the friday or saturday after labor day.
so they want another 6 bucks from us to have it on our phones after spending well over 300$ on permits and tags and licenses? ha!
Post by: Gamblin Guy on August 15, 2014, 05:49:02 PM
Its all about money and selling apps for special tags.....
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 15, 2014, 07:37:49 PM
Post by: t6 on August 15, 2014, 10:15:10 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on August 15, 2014, 10:55:23 PM
I want to see the mule deer proposals.There were several mule deer specific topics...offering some 2 pt permits, reducing seasons in gmu 382, extending mf season to always go at least to Oct 25...a few others I think.
Post by: police women of America on August 16, 2014, 10:26:29 AM
man, disappointing they don't want to educate new hunters with all the laws whetherFor baiting they are considering the following alternatives:Not that I care for baiting Big Game but I sure hope they are not thinking of the worst case scenario ! Would not surprise me :dunno:I'm pretty sure they're considering a ban on baiting deer and elk. It's become a lot more popular in the last few years, and I think they are getting a lot of complaints.
isn't baiting deer illegal already???
No but it seems a lot of people think it is.
cool, I'm surprised hunters-ed, WDFW, ect don't say anything about baiting. I have been looking forever to see if its legal.
It's a controversial issue that some people including some hunters greatly dislike. I think that's why it doesn't get talked about as much as many other issues.
No Change
Banning all big game baiting (deer, elk, sheep, moose, goat)
Banning all big game baiting, except food plots and crops left for wildlife in normal agricultural practices
Banning only guides and outfitters from baiting
they agree with them or not. Personally I think it should stay legal.
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 19, 2014, 06:42:23 AM
Alternative #1: Allocate 50% of available permits to those with 10 or more points. Within this category, allocate proportional to number of points squared. The remaining 50% of available permits are distributed among all applicants according to the number of points squared. In most cases, this will have the effect of further advantaging those with 10 or more points, at the expense of those with fewer.
Alternative #2: Allocate 25% of available permits to those with 10 or more points. Within this category, allocate proportional to number of points squared. The remaining 75% of available permits are distributed among all applicants according to the number of points squared. In most cases, this will have the effect of further advantaging those with 10 or more points, at the expense of those with fewer (although less dramatically than alternative 1).
Alternative #3: Allocate 10% of available permits to hunters 65 years and older.
Alternative #4: Status quo (no change). Points are squared.
Does anyone know what the current % is for people drawing OIL permits that already have greater than 10 points?
Allocating 50% to hunters with greater than 10 points sounds like they are doing nothing to increase the odds for OIL permits. Maybe it should be 75% for hunters with greater than 15 points. At least for the OIL permits.
Post by: bobcat on August 19, 2014, 06:47:27 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 19, 2014, 06:58:10 AM
It also seems to me that they already proposed these ideas a few years back.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 07:18:55 AM
Those things will do nothing to increase odds for special permits. Even if it increases odds for some, it decreases odds for others. To actually increase odds, you either need to increase the number of permits or decrease the number of applicants. Those options listed do neither.Exactly. Those proposals are complete bull $@!* . If we assume permit levels are managed biologically, then the only way to increase odds is to decrease applicants. I believe there are many ways precious revenue could be maintained even if we had alternatives that reduce applicants/increase odds. I think it is very disingenuous for wdfw to only propose these alternatives...I'm not necessarily in favor of any change...but if I were I think real alternatives to increase odds should be included.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 19, 2014, 09:10:46 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 19, 2014, 09:28:51 AM
How many days of general season would you guys be willing to trade for how many additional permits?
Tough to give up days when it takes sometimes 10-15 years to draw a halfway decent permit. But if the state could guarantee a better hunting experience more often I would entertain any ideas.
Post by: bobcat on August 19, 2014, 09:34:35 AM
The only other option that is fair, and that really would help (IMO), would be a 1 or 2 year waiting period after drawing a permit. However, that's not even on the list of options being considered. :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on August 19, 2014, 10:02:49 AM
Jimmy, that's exactly my thoughts as well. To increase draw odds, the number of permits would need to increase, and in order to do that, the general season harvest would need to be reduced.yeah, I was looking at the harvest reports at numbers. A GMU called GMU X had 24 bulls taken in 2013 in mod rifle general season. It was a 12 day season, so works out to 2 bulls/day. If it was an 11 day season, then figure on 22 bulls in general and 2 in special permit. But permit figure on 50% harvest so you could get 4 additional permits. GMU X currently only has 2 permits, so it would raise the number to 6. I would think that would help draw odds assuming a large number of applicants didn't shift over to that GMU. The bad thing is permit hunts are only 10 days in that area while general season is 12. After day 9, the end of the second weekend, I would say 90% of hunters have gone home leaving that area nice and quiet. So, not sure I'd want to trade for more permits anyways.
The only other option that is fair, and that really would help (IMO), would be a 1 or 2 year waiting period after drawing a permit. However, that's not even on the list if options being considered. :dunno:
Post by: returnofsid on August 19, 2014, 10:52:20 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 19, 2014, 11:31:47 AM
Perhaps limiting people to only being able to draw in one category per year might help spread the tags out to more hunters.
Those of us choosing to attend the meetings should really make an attempt to try and get the state to do more on this subject.
Post by: vandeman17 on August 19, 2014, 01:37:25 PM
I agree more with the idea of only being able to apply for certain tags each year and not just throwing your name into every hat. How that would be done would be complex but as long as you could still purchase ghost points for those that you can't actually apply for then wdfw would still get their money and each category overall SHOULD have better odds...
Post by: winshooter88 on August 19, 2014, 02:18:42 PM
And there are more people with 10+ points then some folks realize, they aren't going to go away very quickly if at all with any of the proposed changes. If they change from a bonus points system to a preference points system which is kind of what the proposed changes will do then to be fair they should scrap the entire current system and start over, and that includes starting over points wise.
Post by: bobcat on August 19, 2014, 02:34:57 PM
What's odd to me is where does this magical "10" point number come from? So it's as if somehow a person with 10 points is in a higher class than those with 9 points or less? Weird. All these proposals would do is complicate an already over-complicated system. They screwed it up big time back in 2009 when they added the additional categories, and claimed at that time that it would improve draw odds. We all knew that wouldn't be the case, and it's been proven now that draw odds only got worse with the new system. Now they COULD go back to a little closer to how it used to be, and improve odds, though it probably really wouldn't help by a lot. But what they could do is only allow a person to apply in one category per species. But we know that won't happen, because it would mean a loss in revenue. The waiting period idea would also mean a loss in revenue, and that's probably the reason why it's not one of the proposals.
Post by: idahohuntr on August 19, 2014, 03:03:06 PM
I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.
If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants. If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants? We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above
There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face. I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds. I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. :twocents:
Post by: Curly on August 19, 2014, 03:46:42 PM
Post by: jasnt on August 19, 2014, 03:53:49 PM
I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud. :bash: The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders? Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags).
I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.
If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants. If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants? We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above
There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face. I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds. I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. :twocents:
For once I agree with you on something.
Post by: jasnt on August 19, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud. :bash: The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders? Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags).
I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.
If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants. If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants? We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above
There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face. I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds. I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. :twocents:
For once I agree with you on something.
Post by: bobcat on August 19, 2014, 04:00:58 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 19, 2014, 05:32:02 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 20, 2014, 06:38:50 AM
This doesn't mean it will be easier for anyone to draw a high demand tag but it would spread the tags out to more hunters in the state.
Or at the very least the state could make it an option for hunters who draw multiple tags to return a tag and get their points back. After all even if you draw 2 elk tags you can still only shoot 1 elk.
Post by: Dry creek on August 20, 2014, 02:21:00 PM
Post by: BOWHUNTER45 on August 20, 2014, 02:25:28 PM
Didn't you tell me that the other day ? Welcome to the dark side :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:I still contend these proposals on the point systems were put together by someone dumber than a wheelbarrow...or someone who should be jailed for fraud. :bash: The proportion of moose, sheep, and goat tags that went to point holders with 10 + points in 2013 was 76%, 65%, and 81%...please explain to me how the "50%" is going to help those high point holders? Elk and deer categories for the best hunts (e.g., those SE Washington quality bull hunts) follow the same pattern (10+ pt holders get the majority of the tags).
I believe hunter perception is off from reality in some cases...we always hear the story about the guy who drew with 1 point...because it is so incredible...but I think we forget that in most cases it is the higher point holders with the tags.
If hunters in Washington want better odds, then they need to provide alternatives that will a) increase permits or b) decrease applicants. If we can all agree there is little control over a, then how shall we reduce applicants? We could:
1. Increase application fees
2. Decrease choices
3. Add waiting periods
4. Incentivize not applying (e.g., better general season)
5. Other ??
6. Some combination of the above
There are no free lunches...if we are not willing to pay more, have reduced choices/opportunities, waiting periods etc. then one should refrain from complaining about the low draw odds we all face. I have no real complaint about our current system...I wish odds were better, but I'm not sure what I would be willing to give up for better odds. I am most irritated that WDFW won't present these facts...probably because of the fear that hunters might support alternatives that would reduce the amount of money they bring in. :twocents:
For once I agree with you on something.
Post by: jasnt on August 21, 2014, 02:31:57 PM
Actually, there is a way they could increase permits and help to increase odds, although in the overall scheme of things it probably wouldn't change things much. What we need is just a few permits added for units that currently don't have any. Such as here on the west side, why can't there be late season permits for blacktail deer in every unit, rather than just a few? It could be just five permits for a particular unit, but it would help to spread applicants around a little more. I'm sure there are many other examples of permits that could be added that wouldn't have any significant affect on the resource. Spring bear is another example. Almost every GMU in the state could afford to have at least a few spring bear permits. Why do they only offer these permits in a few units?
Yeah like quadruple spring bear tags in the east. Few more doe tags in ne corner,
Post by: fireweed on August 22, 2014, 09:22:33 AM
I like the notion in this survey that timber companies must allow free access for bear "damage" permits. What a no-brainer! No damage permits if you don't allow state hunters on for free.
Post by: DIYARCHERYJUNKIE on August 23, 2014, 07:06:14 AM
Background Information:
Currently, the general early archery season is 13 days long and opens the Tuesday following Labor Day.
From 2003-2009, it was a 14-day season that occurred September 8th-21st. Before that it was September 1-14.
Category: Elk
Region(s): StatewideOpening day of early archery season was adjusted in 2009 in response to concerns that the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters was disproportionately high compared to other user groups.
Having the early archery season occur earlier has had no discernable effect on the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters.
Location: All GMUs open during early archery seasons
Alternatives
Alternative #1: Standard season dates of September 8th–20th
Alternative #2: A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
Alternative #3: A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
Alternative #4: Switching the current opening dates for early archery and early muzzleloader seasons (i.e., archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader hunters hunt in September)
Alternative #5: No change
The bold statement seem extremely contradicting! I like how all the survey notes end with a lame excuse before they show the alternatives. They tell us what we told them we want and they say why we cant have it. Then they show you the options.
Post by: dreamunelk on August 23, 2014, 07:28:34 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php)
I like the notion in this survey that timber companies must allow free access for bear "damage" permits. What a no-brainer! No damage permits if you don't allow state hunters on for free.
I don't think this has any affect on damage permits. Just spring bear permits for hunters. I think a lot of hunters are complaining about having to pay for access for seasons established to address damage issues. It needs a little clarification I think. I could be wrong.
Post by: fireweed on August 23, 2014, 11:40:20 AM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/seasonsetting/2015-2017/comments.php)
I like the notion in this survey that timber companies must allow free access for bear "damage" permits. What a no-brainer! No damage permits if you don't allow state hunters on for free.
I don't think this has any affect on damage permits. Just spring bear permits for hunters. I think a lot of hunters are complaining about having to pay for access for seasons established to address damage issues. It needs a little clarification I think. I could be wrong.
Spring bear seasons were set up to address timber damage--and they are a good idea. Free public access to timberland for ALL bear seasons and harvest (spring, fall, damage) should be a requirement if the timber company still wants to 1) issue or request damage permits 2) feed bears 3) have a spring damage season.
Post by: dreamingbig on August 25, 2014, 12:39:00 PM
16 Archery hunters would prefer to have a general early archery season that is more coincident with the elk breeding season and later in the month of September to better address high temperatures and private forestland fire closures.
Background Information:
Currently, the general early archery season is 13 days long and opens the Tuesday following Labor Day.
From 2003-2009, it was a 14-day season that occurred September 8th-21st. Before that it was September 1-14.
Category: Elk
Region(s): StatewideOpening day of early archery season was adjusted in 2009 in response to concerns that the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters was disproportionately high compared to other user groups.
Having the early archery season occur earlier has had no discernable effect on the proportion of mature bulls harvested by archery hunters.
Location: All GMUs open during early archery seasons
Alternatives
Alternative #1: Standard season dates of September 8th–20th
Alternative #2: A 13-day season that opens the first Friday following Labor Day
Alternative #3: A 13-day season that opens the first Saturday following Labor Day
Alternative #4: Switching the current opening dates for early archery and early muzzleloader seasons (i.e., archery hunters hunt in October and Muzzleloader hunters hunt in September)
Alternative #5: No change
The bold statement seem extremely contradicting! I like how all the survey notes end with a lame excuse before they show the alternatives. They tell us what we told them we want and they say why we cant have it. Then they show you the options.
And the fact that they take input from all user groups for when the season should be held. The public survey results are worthless
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on August 25, 2014, 01:31:31 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on August 28, 2014, 12:16:13 PM
Their idea of giving 50% of the permits to individuals with greater than 10 works by having 2 draws. The first one has everybody's name in the hat and they draw till half of the tags are awarded. After that they would hold a 2nd draw and only applicants with 10 or more points would have their names in the hat. They feel by doing this for moose it would increase the odds of an applicant who has 10 or more points by about 15-20%.
I brought up the idea of allowing hunters to give back permits that they don't want if they draw multiple permits and give those permits to people who did not draw anything. A couple of the wdfw guys said they really liked the idea and feel it is something that they could make happen for people interested in returning a permit. Any permits that a hunter returns would be accompanied by his points being restored for that category plus one for not drawing. They said they would take it back to their department and run it by the people who make the decisions to see if it is something that is feasible for the department to handle.
So if this is an option you would like to have. When you fill out your survey put in the comment box that you would like the department to develop a permit give back program and let's see if it helps a few more people get a permit. :dunno:
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 28, 2014, 04:03:27 PM
Post by: Ridgerunner on August 28, 2014, 04:04:01 PM