Post by: idahohuntr on December 07, 2014, 09:13:42 PM
I-594: WDFW indicated that the Attorney General of WA has indicated that agencies with general LE Authority (which WDFW has) are exempt. The exemption applies to the agency and all staff (including volunteers) on official WDFW business/duty. The take away...I-594 will not impact hunter education courses being taught by official WDFW HE instructors in their official capacity. WDFW is very sensitive/concerned about this issue and will continue working it...they were very concerned about potential impacts to hunter education but seem to be getting reassurance from the AG that it won't really impact their program.
Baiting:
This was the big topic...WDFW started the discussion by saying they were going to recommend elimination of baiting ungulates for hunting. They would include some minor exceptions like active ag operations, food plots, hunters with disabilities...but generally support a ban. There was substantial pushback from GMAC members uncomfortable with a ban and WDFW's recommendation. WDFW then seemed to back track a little and may suggest a more middle ground option that imposes some regulation but doesn't ban it out right. It was a little unclear to me exactly what they would recommend or present to the commission, but I believe they settled on backing off a solid recommendation for a ban...but who knows. They did acknowledge that they received a ton of feedback supporting baiting in the last round of comments and that 6 years ago they proposed a ban only to have it squashed in the public comment period before the commission meeting. So, folks like me that support baiting...keep the pressure up in respectful and intelligent communication and I think we still may have a shot at saving baiting...Many folks on GMAC really hammered away that if there are a few folks really abusing baiting (placing tons of apples, for example) that regulation would be reasonable and useful...a complete ban is not necessary to address the problem in many peoples minds. However, there are those that believe baiting is unethical and not fair chase and so no regulation other than a ban is acceptable. Most folks agreed that perhaps regulating quantity of bait would address some of the most serious complaints.
They will be recommending the following for 2015-17 seasons:
-Early archery elk will start the first saturday after labor day, and run for 13 days
-They will be adding at least 24 GMU's to early muzzleloader elk seasons...not certain which ones.
-Modern generalmule deer season will be extended 2 days, start 1st saturday after the 10th and go 11 days, ending on a tuesday
-Adding 14 new quality deer hunts in Region 5&6
-Eliminating 2pt restriction in the deer GMU's on the westide that have them (something like 4?)
Equipment
-Crossbows (including ones with scopes) will be allowed during modern firearm seasons, but not archery or muzzleloader seasons (except disabled archers can still use them)
-Mechanical broadheads will be allowed...although reps for the archery groups spoke up about issues with mechanicals and referenced studies where penetration was poor for mechanical broadheads shot at angles...after some discussion it sounds like WDFW may consider not recommending mechanical broadheads or possibly not allowing them for elk but allowing them on smaller game like deer.
-Allow semi-auto handguns (9mm or larger) in firearm restriction areas for big game hunting
Tags/Point System:
-They are going to revise the point system so approximately 25% of all quality tags will be set aside for the highest point holders. They are not sure what the point cutoff will be...they originally thought maybe 10 pts or higher, but are now suggesting it may be a higher point total. Because of logistics with license system it will not be implemented in 2015, but likely 2016.
-They are restoring antlerless whitetail opportunity in NE Wa for youth, senior, disabled and early archery and muzzleloader seasons.
-WDFW was very neutral on continuation of the 4pt restriction in GMU 117/121. At minimum I think they will recommend any buck for youth in those GMU's, and really leave it up to the commission to decide.
-Cougar seasons likely extended a month, into April...quite a bit of discussion on harvest guidelines, sub-adult harvest, ability of wdfw staff to recognize sub-adult cougars etc. You cougar hunters may have great interest and understanding of the issues but I dozed off a bit on this part :dunno:
-Spring bear permits in NE Wa will be doubled
OIL Species
-Goat permits will increase by 1 or 2 in 2015, including a new hunt in Darrington area if I recall correctly
-Moose populations appear to be large, possibly seeing some evidence of habitat limitation in WA. Bull:cow ratios very good etc. They are proposing several new hunt areas, they will create more hunt choices by splitting some seasons into October and November as opposed to one hunt choice with a 2 month season...but the biggest news is they will be increasing Moose tags by about 20% from a total of 130ish to 160ish tags (this includes antlerless tags too). So everybodys odds of drawing a Moose tag will increase 20% in 2015!
-For Bighorn sheep/Mt. Goat Auction and Raffle tags, they are going to increase the number of areas with 2 or more permits and they will manage the herds on something like a 3 year harvest plan and so if in 1 year all the auction/raffle guys hit one unit then they will close it down for a couple years...but if the harvest doesn't congregate in 1 unit then it will allow more opportunity at different units for the auction/raffle guys. Until now, many biologists have been reluctant to add a 2nd tag to units with only 1 tag because going from 1 to 2 tags could actually in theory increase harvest to 5 sheep if the auction and raffle guys hunted the same area. (*Thank you wingshooter for correcting this...I think I have it a little more accurate now)
-The Swakane Bighorn Herd will be managed a little differently...it will be allowed in an auction one year and the raffle the following year, always alternating years...kind of similar to how IDFG manages the Craig Mountain bighorn sheep tag.
Post by: hughjorgan on December 07, 2014, 09:25:03 PM
Post by: fair-chase on December 07, 2014, 09:27:46 PM
Quote
Tags/Point System:
-They are going to revise the point system so approximately 25% of all quality tags will be set aside for the highest point holders. They are not sure what the point cutoff will be...they originally thought maybe 10 pts or higher, but are now suggesting it may be a higher point total. Because of logistics with license system it will not be implemented in 2015, but likely 2016.
:bash: :bash: :bash:
Is WDFW hell bent on reducing hunter recruitment, or just making sure the rate of points creep exceeds the rate of monetary inflation???
If this is implemented WDFW can kiss my families annual $600 tag/license donation goodbye.
Post by: fair-chase on December 07, 2014, 09:28:56 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 07, 2014, 09:42:43 PM
Post by: huntnnw on December 07, 2014, 09:48:34 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 07, 2014, 09:54:26 PM
Post by: Special T on December 07, 2014, 10:00:28 PM
I have one question.
Was allowing 9mm & up semiauto hand guns for hunting in restricted areas? Please explain.
Post by: bearkautz on December 07, 2014, 10:17:59 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 07, 2014, 10:27:41 PM
Hats off to you Idahohnter for your summery of the meeting you attend. I wish every member that attneded WDFW meeting reported back like you do. :tup:I'm not super familiar with it, but right now the rules basically only allow revolvers to be used in the firearm restricted areas over in Western Washington during a modern firearm season (I believe these areas are mostly around urban places?)...anyways, WDFW felt that there was no reason a semi-auto handgun couldn't be allowed as well, thus the change. Only effects firearm restricted areas.
I have one question.
Was allowing 9mm & up semiauto hand guns for hunting in restricted areas? Please explain.
Post by: Bob33 on December 07, 2014, 10:39:55 PM
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-28-248 (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=232-28-248)
(d) Modern firearm tag holders may hunt during established modern firearm seasons with bows and arrows; crossbows; muzzleloaders; revolver-type handguns; or shotguns, so long as the equipment and ammunition complies with department rules.
Post by: Lucky1 on December 07, 2014, 11:06:03 PM
Can you recommend a good way to contact the WDFW to support keeping bating legal. I did comment during their comment period. I would like make sure they know that they will be losing tag sales and a management tool if they do enact a ban.
Post by: bobcat on December 07, 2014, 11:28:52 PM
Post by: UrbanTrapper on December 07, 2014, 11:31:25 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 07, 2014, 11:46:45 PM
Any idea who in the GMAC is pushing the ban on baiting and why?Not really GMAC, although I'm sure some members support a ban...a minority of them. The issue is being raised by hunters directly to WDFW Commissioners who have asked WDFW to make a recommendation on the future of baiting.
Obviously the commissioners are a good place to send comments on the baiting issue... commission@dfw.wa.gov . Another person worth sending comments to might be Jerry Nelson (Jerry.Nelson@dfw.wa.gov); it seems as though he will be the one presenting information to the commission. PLEASE...In sending comments, particularly to Jerry, be respectful and kind. He, like all the other WDFW staff at this GMAC meeting, are very professional, really nice guys, enjoy hunting, etc. They have a tough issue to tackle and I really believe based on his and other staffs willingness to evaluate things carefully that we can help them find a solution better than a complete ban. It will not in any way benefit those in support of baiting to send over the top angry or disrespectful emails to these folks and will in my opinion be very counter-productive. However, pointing out all the reasons to maintain baiting, the potential impacts to hunter participation/recruitment/retention, etc...sure can't hurt.
Post by: denali on December 08, 2014, 12:49:04 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 08, 2014, 02:27:52 AM
Points System
I think it's a good idea to give 25% to the highest point holders, Utah gives 50% and I think it works great. 25% is very conservative but gives our hunters who have been applying forever a little more hope, nothing wrong with that, 75% still goes to anyone.
Baiting
I agree that a few small rules would be far better than banning baiting altogether, address the problems and don't eliminate it altogether.
Equipment
Those all seem like good reasonable recommendations, the western states are way behind on crossbow hunting, nothing wrong with allowing that in modern seasons, might have to give it a go myself.
Cougar
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
OIL Species
That mostly sounds fair enough to me, although I think they should look closely at moose numbers in some units. I am pretty convinced a few areas are declining. I do think they could double the number of goat areas and give out more goat permits statewide.
Post by: huntnnw on December 08, 2014, 03:54:45 AM
Post by: winshooter88 on December 08, 2014, 06:27:58 AM
The baiting issue was actually brought out of the scoping surveys, and these were only filled out by hunters. Some of the GMAC members asked if the WDFW staff could just hold off reporting to the commission until the possible rules changes were explored more thoroughly and Jerry and Dave Ware both said that the commission had asked for input about baiting to be presented at the December commission meeting. Dave Ware said he would put something together and send it to the GMAC members so they could comment on it before the Dec. commission meeting.
On the sheep tags I think the OP didn't quite catch what was said, areas with only one tag would still not be available to hunt with auction or raffle tags. But some areas (for example, Chelan Butte) and others would be increased to two tags since with the new rules the WDFW could better control the number of animals taken by the adjustments to the yearly take. For example, if a unit could not support having five sheep taken every year (two draw tags, auction tag and two raffle tags) then after it happened the WDFW would only allow either and auction tag or the raffle tags to be used in that unit in the following years.
Post by: huntnnw on December 08, 2014, 06:40:50 AM
Post by: motg9_6 on December 08, 2014, 07:15:05 AM
Post by: Gamblin Guy on December 08, 2014, 07:24:27 AM
-Early archery elk will start the first saturday after labor day, and run for 13 days
Given the history of archery elk seasons in this state I find it very hard to believe they will set the seasons this way. The dates this coming year would run Sept. 12-24th which puts the season into the rut and to close to the money making rifle rut tags.
I guess we will wait and see but I wouldn't bet on these dates flying.....
Post by: winshooter88 on December 08, 2014, 07:46:51 AM
No, cameras on bows did not come up.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 07:55:24 AM
CougarThey were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines". A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines. Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 08, 2014, 08:01:08 AM
Some of the changes I agree with, others I don't.
Again thanks for the update.
Post by: suga on December 08, 2014, 08:31:23 AM
Post by: whacker1 on December 08, 2014, 10:57:06 AM
I apply in UT and I think that system or any like it are terrible! Atleast here you have a chance to draw every year and over 10-15 years you could draw multiple times. In UT u will draw some of the coveted tags maybe once in your life with their system and the point creep is terrible! If they implement it on the OIL tags here in WA what a joke! there are way to many apps to even notice some point program like that.
I dis-like combing our current point system with a 25% guarantee to the highest point holders. It would make it impossible for someone to ever draw sheep, goat, Moose, or a Quality Elk tag that has less than 4 permits in it. For those at max points it is great, but you will never be able to draw the most desirable after you draw. So why apply after that?
if we had a 100 tags in every hunt then, yes it might make sense, but for all those hunts that have less than 10 permits/tags available....those become virtually impossible to draw. I like our current point system, because even thought at 10 points I don't hold a candle to the person that has 19, I still have hope for Goat tag. If the 25% cap for max points is put forward, I can never draw, because there aren't enough tags to ever get below max. There are a lot of people below max points and the only hope they would have for the most desirable tags is that everyone older than them quits applying due to age, drawing, etc. Our population of applicants is too large and # of tags available too small for this to work. I would expect that the revenue would go down after a period of time, because people will realize that there is no hope and quit applying. I guess that is the only saving grace for getting drawn is if everyone else figures it out......and quits applying.
I can't support that concept
Post by: Bob33 on December 08, 2014, 11:25:55 AM
Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders. The only good way to increase draw odds for anyone is to increase the number of available tags and other than the few listed by the OP that is not going to happen.Here is the data based on 2013 OIL tags. The percentages are the number of tags that went to individuals with the specified number of points or more.
For example, 75% of the "any moose" tags when to applications with 10 or more points. If "highest point holders" is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing.
Pts Moose Goat Sheep
20 0% 0% 0%
19 0% 0% 0%
18 13% 8% 15%
17 17% 15% 31%
16 26% 15% 38%
15 37% 23% 42%
14 45% 38% 50%
13 57% 38% 50%
12 62% 54% 58%
11 70% 69% 73%
10 75% 69% 81%
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2014, 11:30:06 AM
If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change". :tup:
Post by: whacker1 on December 08, 2014, 11:38:20 AM
"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"
If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change". :tup:
So, I guess we don't know what that definition is "highest point holders" in most states means max points, such as Wyoming and I believe Arizona.
Post by: Bob33 on December 08, 2014, 11:55:31 AM
That's right. Once they do, it will be interesting to see how it affects draw odds both for those with "highest points", and the others. in 2013 there were 5 "any moose" applications with 20 points, which was the most any application had. There were 7 applications with 19 points. Those with 20 and 19 points would all draw within two years if 25% of the tags went to those with the most points. However, there were 382 with 18 points. In two years they would be in the "most points" category. Obviously they cannot all draw. The year after they would be joined by the 238 with 17 points, and so forth. Their draw odds would improve, but by how much? At the other end of the spectrum, how many new hunters would want to join the application game when draw odds took another hit for those just starting out? In 2013 there were nearly 8000 moose applications with four points or less, and three of them drew. Your odds of winning the lottery and going to BC to hunt moose are probably better."For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"
If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change". :tup:
So, I guess we don't know what that definition is "highest point holders" in most states means max points, such as Wyoming and I believe Arizona.
In my opinion, it's a shell game. The only way to significantly improve draw odds is to manage for more wildlife.
Post by: ballpark on December 08, 2014, 11:58:54 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 11:59:16 AM
"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"When I pointed out the origninal 10pt cutoff and the stats Bob posted...that is when Dave Ware said they are re-evaluating the cutoff "point". I think they realized 10+ pts already get the majority of the tags...Dave was clear that they want to set the limit where it makes an appreciable difference to draw odds. To me, this means that you basically have to set it so that the 25% of tags are given to the max point holders (or something close).
If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change". :tup:
If we look at "any moose" tags as an example...there are 1504 people who had 15+ points in 2013. There are 82 any moose permits. If we reserved 25% of them for 15+ point holders (21 permits) it would take 72 years for all of the 15+ point holders to get a tag under this new system designed to appease the high point holders. If we set the cutoff at 19 points, then the 12 applicants with those 19 or more points would be guaranteed a tag the following year. I don't believe it is appropriate that high point holders should be entitled to tags...WDFW says they get a lot of feedback about hunters with high point totals wanting improved draw odds...BS...all levels of point holders want improved draw odds! If WDFW implements this, it will only result in substantial point creep and more complaints about absurdly low draw odds. Like all ponzi schemes...a few in at the base level could stand to do quite well though.
If WDFW's objective is to improve draw odds the easiest thing they could do is find ways to reduce applicants. I personally beleive we could come up with revenue neutral options and still improve draw odds. I'm starting to think maybe there are a few upcoming WDFW retirees who have not drawn their moose/sheep/quality elk etc tags yet...time to make a few changes so they have something to do in retirement :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 12:02:15 PM
In my opinion, it's a shell game. The only way to significantly improve draw odds is to manage for more wildlife.:tup: Although, I think the most significant thing to improve draw odds would be to take steps to reduce applicants. Difficult to envision a 20% increase in say sheep tags, but I could come up with a few ideas that would cut OIL applications by 80 or 90%. :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on December 08, 2014, 12:03:11 PM
Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders. The only good way to increase draw odds for anyone is to increase the number of available tags and other than the few listed by the OP that is not going to happen.Here is the data based on 2013 OIL tags. The percentages are the number of tags that went to individuals with the specified number of points or more.
For example, 75% of the "any moose" tags when to applications with 10 or more points. If "highest point holders" is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing.
Pts Moose Goat Sheep
20 0% 0% 0%
19 0% 0% 0%
18 13% 8% 15%
17 17% 15% 31%
16 26% 15% 38%
15 37% 23% 42%
14 45% 38% 50%
13 57% 38% 50%
12 62% 54% 58%
11 70% 69% 73%
10 75% 69% 81%
If it changes nothing then why elicit the change?
Post by: pd on December 08, 2014, 12:07:06 PM
Hats off to you Idahohnter for your summery of the meeting you attend. I wish every member that attneded WDFW meeting reported back like you do. :tup:I'm not super familiar with it, but right now the rules basically only allow revolvers to be used in the firearm restricted areas over in Western Washington during a modern firearm season (I believe these areas are mostly around urban places?)...anyways, WDFW felt that there was no reason a semi-auto handgun couldn't be allowed as well, thus the change. Only effects firearm restricted areas.
I have one question.
Was allowing 9mm & up semiauto hand guns for hunting in restricted areas? Please explain.
All correct. Here is the issue: In many areas of western Washington the general rifle season has a firearms limitation, in that centerfire rifles are banned. This means that you can only use shotguns, muzzleloaders, archery equipment to hunt in those areas. As the others point out, for some crazy reason, the regulations also allow handguns, but specify that the handgun must be a revolver. This is nuts, of course: The deer don't know if they have been shot with a semi-auto handgun or a revolver handgun. I believe the rationale was that pistols usually have a high magazine capacity, but I have never been able to get a clear answer on this. In any case, many of us have been pushing for a change to the regulation, to eliminate the reference to "revolvers" and simply allow any handgun. It seems WDFW will require 9mm and larger caliber, which is fine (22LR is already banned). This is a sensible decision, and I am happy to see it finally come.
Post by: pd on December 08, 2014, 12:13:07 PM
1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all? What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago? Is there some special interest group pushing it? I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban. You were at the meeting, what was your impression?
2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs? That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?
Thanks for the notes, very helpful.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 08, 2014, 12:27:41 PM
Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.1. As wingshooter mentioned, it was brought up in the scoping for the upcoming Game Management Plan. The issue is being raised by hunters who do not believe baiting is ethical. Its not a group of anti-hunters or anything like that. Personally, I think a whole bunch of hunters opposed to baiting in general would be satisfied if some common sense rules on bait location, timing, and amount were imposed...I think it is a solution that could leave the most people happy :dunno:
1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all? What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago? Is there some special interest group pushing it? I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban. You were at the meeting, what was your impression?
2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs? That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?
Thanks for the notes, very helpful.
2. No discussion on a general spring season whatsoever. They mentioned the doubling of permits in NE Wa near the very end of the meeting as it was inadvertently left out.
Post by: EyeTooth on December 08, 2014, 01:20:59 PM
You’re right. The people having to make these decisions need to hear in calm voices, the clear details about all of the issues.
Here’s what I’ll say. It only covers the permit/tag issue, and will only be said on here. I really enjoy reading everyone’s comments and I’m not trying to be controversial. Just would like to remind everyone, including those from the DFW on here that some of us have longer memories about some things than others think we do. I guess that doesn’t matter any way. We’re still ignored. I’m not selecting copies of peoples posts based on who they are. I like what all of you have to say, and appreciate what you do! These are just the ones that pertain to what my personal experience is with this issue. My comments aren’t meant to be negative. They’re to point out why to not allow this particular change.
Because of this:
“Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders.”
I kind of want to say:
Here we go again with the DFW and commission making changes based on what some of the people with the most points (high point holders) want. Similar to setting up all of the sub-categories for elk and deer just because some of the people with the most points (high point holders) were complaining that they thought it wasn’t fair that they couldn’t draw a cow permit without having to use their points like everyone else. This took and still does take opportunities away from and meat off the tables of people who never got in the way of the people with the most points (high point holders), or their chances of drawing a quality permit.
And also, because of this:
"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"
And this: If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change".
If I was one of the people involved in making the decision, I would have to say:
If it’s true that this changes nothing, then why waste time on it?
Why continue to give into these complaints (which encourage more complaining), from a minority of applicants, in this case (high point holders) when the rest of us pay for the same opportunities as well? Why not tell the people who are doing the complaining that they need to stop thinking only about themselves. When they call or write asking for special treatment tell them NO. Some people need to hear this word more often, and when they finally understand they will stop calling and complaining. If they don’t, tell them you have to hang up now because you have more important work to do, because you do.
When is the DFW and the Commission going to stick up for the average guy as far as points are concerned? Please don't tell me that the average guy needs to attend more meetings for this to happen. WDFW is paid to represent all of us. They should know right from wrong without someone having to be there to remind them. I've been to meetings and talk with WDFW many times. I've found "it's not who you know, but who I know in many cases". Quite frustrating!
Why did I write this? Sorry. I guess we all have things that seem important to us. I’ll go back into the shadows again. Thanks again idahohuntr!
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2014, 01:27:34 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 08, 2014, 01:42:27 PM
Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.1. Personally, I think a whole bunch of hunters opposed to baiting in general would be satisfied if some common sense rules on bait location, timing, and amount were imposed...I think it is a solution that could leave the most people happy :dunno:
1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all? What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago? Is there some special interest group pushing it? I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban. You were at the meeting, what was your impression?
2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs? That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?
Thanks for the notes, very helpful.
Anything other than a complete ban will leave a window open for some to abuse, even with a complete ban there will be those that ignore it.
If the issue truly is "location, timing and amount" and WDFW has a genuine interest in pleasing hunters, then they should impose a full ban and secretly not impose it. A full ban will likely keep those abusing the rule with dump truck loads of bait from going that far overboard, while at the same time WDFW will know that the occasional tree stand guy will pack in a bag of corn or alfalfa bail, which would be the alternative anyway if they were to forgo the "all out ban" and limit amounts. :twocents:
Eyetooth, well said. The last GMAC meeting had a old guy pushing real hard for this 25% preferential treatment, whining that he will likely not draw a sheep tag before he dies and that's just not fair, to paraphrase. As you said, only interested in his own chances and obviously couldn't care less about the rest of the hunting community.
Its squeaky wheels like this that give me such a bad taste about these "interest groups". Its whitehouse politics in a smaller form and seldom speaks for the majority of this states hunters.
Idaho hunter, this is not a inditement on you, I know there are a few that actually speak up for the rest of us as a whole and are not there purely out of self interest. ;)
Post by: winshooter88 on December 09, 2014, 04:48:35 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 05:19:30 AM
As far as systems, I actually like Idaho's method the best, no points, you can only apply for one specie, you pay upfront money to apply and the tags are pricier so not as many people apply.
As far as point systems, I like Utah's the best, but I can see why it is hard to change a system mid-stream, everyone already has a mindset on the current system. The biggest problem is that we have thousands of hunters wanting to draw a handful of tags. There simply is no way that everyone can be a winner. :twocents:
Post by: huntnnw on December 09, 2014, 05:37:57 AM
CougarThey were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines". A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines. Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.
what a effing scam..dbl the permits :bash: how about OTC!!!!!! all about the dollar! there is no reason why this shouldnt be open and not just NE WA but the whole state!! We have way to many bears
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 05:47:16 AM
CougarThey were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines". A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines. Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.
what a effing scam..dbl the permits :bash: how about OTC!!!!!! all about the dollar! there is no reason why this shouldnt be open and not just NE WA but the whole state!! We have way to many bears
I agree, there should be an open statewide spring season. WA has way too many bear and that might bring numbers down a little.
Same with cougar, there should be an open statewide season with much higher or no harvest guidelines!
Post by: huntnnw on December 09, 2014, 05:51:40 AM
Post by: huntnnw on December 09, 2014, 05:55:59 AM
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 05:58:35 AM
Post by: huntnnw on December 09, 2014, 06:04:18 AM
Post by: mfswallace on December 09, 2014, 06:58:05 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 09, 2014, 07:02:52 AM
Post by: Ridgerunner on December 09, 2014, 07:08:02 AM
One question I have with the 25% to the high point tag holders is how do you allocate the tags in units with less than 4 tags, would they be the same as what is currently done?
Also not in favor of what they are doing with the sheep, I'd hate to see Chelan Butte go to multiple tags, but it looks like the writing is on the wall for that one.
Post by: mfswallace on December 09, 2014, 07:38:03 AM
Idaho Hunter, 2 questions.1. As wingshooter mentioned, it was brought up in the scoping for the upcoming Game Management Plan. The issue is being raised by hunters who do not believe baiting is ethical. Its not a group of anti-hunters or anything like that. Personally, I think a whole bunch of hunters opposed to baiting in general would be satisfied if some common sense rules on bait location, timing, and amount were imposed...I think it is a solution that could leave the most people happy :dunno:
1. Concerning baiting, why did this topic come up at all? What was the motivation--did it come from the failed attempt 6 years ago? Is there some special interest group pushing it? I know that WA is one of the few states to still allow baiting for ungulates, but that alone is a silly reason to propose a ban. You were at the meeting, what was your impression?
2. Concerning the doubling of Spring Bear permits in NE WA, was there any discussion of simply allowing Spring Bear hunting without permits in all (or, many) GMUs? That is, did anybody even broach the idea of an Idaho-style Spring Bear hunt, which is OTC?
Thanks for the notes, very helpful.
2. No discussion on a general spring season whatsoever. They mentioned the doubling of permits in NE Wa near the very end of the meeting as it was inadvertently left out.
1) And the cannibalism of others hunting style by other hunters begins >:( :bash: :bdid:
I don't think using duck decoys is sporting as it creates an unfair expectation in other ducks minds that the areas is safe. It's that kind of rationale that leads to all of us losing hunting :'(
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 09, 2014, 08:30:41 AM
Post by: Roosevelt on December 09, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
I am a wet side hunter and have thought many times that I would like to see them offer quality elk tags in more units on this side. Why not have a tag or two in nearly every elk unit during the peak of the rut? I believe that would increase draw odds for many guys going after quality tags on the east side and west side. Currently, I only put in for quality elk hunts on the years I draw multiseason elk because there aren't quality elk tags in the areas that I hunt on the west side and the quality elk tags on the east side are that much better. For a guy like me who only has 6 or 7 quality elk points, I would gladly risk burning them on a tag with maybe lower quality elk but get to hunt during the rut. :twocents:
Post by: idahohuntr on December 09, 2014, 09:45:42 AM
I am 100% against the 25% of tags allocated to high points holders.... didnt they say higher points would make someone draw anyways? This just confirms that the point system doesnt work. This will make people really want to start appkying in wa... :bash: i hqve said it and will again. To increase draw odds you have to decrease applicants. Ideally would be going away from the 147 categpries we can all apply for. Give us 2 hunt choices per species regardless if a hunter chooses cow or bull. Also it would help if you had to pick deer and elk or oil. Give the oil guys 2 choices also regardless of species or area. Make people really think about what theu want to apply for. Not allow everyone to throw their name in every single draw pool!. Too bad i just bought a new house in wa.... the fiance told me last month we should have looked in idaho... i said told you so.:yeah:
They already have a perfectly good system that rewards those with the highest point totals. Years of data clearly demonstrate that the highest point holders get the lions share of the tags already, with the existing system. I guess the few bread crumbs left over for the guy who hasn't applied for 20 years consecutively is just not acceptable. To implement what they are proposing will be a short-term shell game that rewards the top few point holders...then in a few years whatever point total they cap it off at will be full of hunters expecting to draw. The only factor that will ultimately limit point creep in Washington is the human life span. :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 09, 2014, 09:47:53 AM
yep and it is only getting worse with everyone able to apply in every single category... :bash:I am 100% against the 25% of tags allocated to high points holders.... didnt they say higher points would make someone draw anyways? This just confirms that the point system doesnt work. This will make people really want to start appkying in wa... :bash: i hqve said it and will again. To increase draw odds you have to decrease applicants. Ideally would be going away from the 147 categpries we can all apply for. Give us 2 hunt choices per species regardless if a hunter chooses cow or bull. Also it would help if you had to pick deer and elk or oil. Give the oil guys 2 choices also regardless of species or area. Make people really think about what theu want to apply for. Not allow everyone to throw their name in every single draw pool!. Too bad i just bought a new house in wa.... the fiance told me last month we should have looked in idaho... i said told you so.:yeah:
They already have a perfectly good system that rewards those with the highest point totals. Years of data clearly demonstrate that the highest point holders get the lions share of the tags already, with the existing system. I guess the few bread crumbs left over for the guy who hasn't applied for 20 years consecutively is just not acceptable. To implement what they are proposing will be a short-term shell game that rewards the top few point holders...then in a few years whatever point total they cap it off at will be full of hunters expecting to draw. The only factor that will ultimately limit point creep in Washington is the human life span. :yike: :chuckle:
Post by: bobcat on December 09, 2014, 10:18:48 AM
Lots of people suggest that decreasing the number of choices on an application would greatly increase draw odds. I don't believe it would do anything for overall draw odds, but I still would agree to only allowing one hunt choice per application. I like that it would be simplifying the process somewhat, and it would make it easier to calculate actual draw odds.
One very simple solution to reduce applicants would be a waiting period. Just for example, let's say 2 years for antlerless, buck, and bull categories, and three years for the quality categories. Anyone who draws a permit cannot apply in that category for the specified time period.
The other thing is I think they need to add a lot more special permits, even if it's just a couple in each GMU. For instance I see room for more late season blacktail deer permits in units that do not currently have any (and yes, I did see in Idahohunter's report that they are adding 14 quality deer permits in regions 5 & 6, so that's a great start). And of course, as I have mentioned many times before, there could be spring bear permits in just about every GMU in western Washington, instead of only the four or five that we have.
Post by: NoBark on December 09, 2014, 10:31:08 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 09, 2014, 10:36:19 AM
Am I the only archer here that noticed the Elk Season schedule? First Saturday after Labor day? That must be a misprint! Holy Cow, that would be the 12th through 24th! Yowza..
I noticed, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lot more posted about it. I think there will be a record number of archery elk tags sold in 2015! Of course, the same could be true of the muzzleloader elk tags, if they're adding 24 GMU's to the early season.
Post by: bearpaw on December 09, 2014, 10:39:29 AM
Am I the only archer here that noticed the Elk Season schedule? First Saturday after Labor day? That must be a misprint! Holy Cow, that would be the 12th through 24th! Yowza..
I noticed, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lot more posted about it. I think there will be a record number of archery elk tags sold in 2015! Of course, the same could be true of the muzzleloader elk tags, if they're adding 24 GMU's to the early season.
I noticed both of those comments, I especially liked the addition of muzzy units. Not much muzzy opportunity in many areas.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 09, 2014, 10:40:51 AM
Both are good.Am I the only archer here that noticed the Elk Season schedule? First Saturday after Labor day? That must be a misprint! Holy Cow, that would be the 12th through 24th! Yowza..
I noticed, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lot more posted about it. I think there will be a record number of archery elk tags sold in 2015! Of course, the same could be true of the muzzleloader elk tags, if they're adding 24 GMU's to the early season.
I noticed both of those comments, I especially liked the addition of muzzy units. Not much muzzy opportunity in many areas.
Post by: ipkus on December 09, 2014, 10:53:42 AM
“Tags, giving 25% of the tags for quality and OIL tags is simply a feel good move to get the high point holders off of WDFW's backs, since approximately 75% of these tags already are drawn by the high point holders.”
I kind of want to say:
Here we go again with the DFW and commission making changes based on what some of the people with the most points (high point holders) want. Similar to setting up all of the sub-categories for elk and deer just because some of the people with the most points (high point holders) were complaining that they thought it wasn’t fair that they couldn’t draw a cow permit without having to use their points like everyone else. This took and still does take opportunities away from and meat off the tables of people who never got in the way of the people with the most points (high point holders), or their chances of drawing a quality permit.
Don't kid yourself; they created all of the new special permit categories for one reason...additional application revenue. Period.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 09, 2014, 12:06:18 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 09, 2014, 12:18:17 PM
That's actually a lot of GMUs,Am I the only archer here that noticed the Elk Season schedule? First Saturday after Labor day? That must be a misprint! Holy Cow, that would be the 12th through 24th! Yowza..
I noticed, and I'm surprised that there hasn't been a lot more posted about it. I think there will be a record number of archery elk tags sold in 2015! Of course, the same could be true of the muzzleloader elk tags, if they're adding 24 GMU's to the early season.
Post by: whacker1 on December 09, 2014, 12:27:25 PM
I like the idea of 25% going to higher point holders, if fact, I'd like to see it at 50%. Do I think the guys who have been waiting for 19+ years to draw should have an even better shot at those impossible tags, yes I do. One year for muzzy in the blues when they had 3 tags, all three went to guys with 6,4 and 2 points. Call me a whiner cause it did!
I agree these things happen, but you essentially would eliminate Quality Tags for the Youth, because they would never be able to achieve the high point totals. after 10 years, you still wouldn't have eliminated the highest point totals. I agree folks have been waiting their whole hunting lives (some of them) for quality elk tags, but if this gets implemented a 20 year old that currently has 5 points won't be able to draw a quality tag for elk until they are well into their 60's or later depending on how many people drop out of the application process......hunting recruitment would fall further and quicker than it already is. How would you keep youth interested if they have no hope of drawing?
Post by: bobcat on December 09, 2014, 12:31:33 PM
Or the other option I've been considering- no elk tag purchase at all in 2015. Elk hunting in this state is really beginning to lose its appeal for me. With hoof rot, and almost all timber companies charging for access, and eastern Washington being spike only, it seems a guy would be better off hunting out of state for elk, even if you could only afford to go every other year.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 09, 2014, 12:37:29 PM
I think the youth tags should be increased, they do have their own category but there isn't enough to go around. My daughter didn't get to use her elk points but I guess there just isn't enough time as a youth to draw from the youth section. I have to disagree with you about youths never drawing a quality elk tag though, even if they put 25 or 50 percent to multiple point holders, they would still be able to draw the other 50 or 75 percent of the tags available for everyone. I just like the idea that at least a certain percent are guaranteed to go to higher point holders.I like the idea of 25% going to higher point holders, if fact, I'd like to see it at 50%. Do I think the guys who have been waiting for 19+ years to draw should have an even better shot at those impossible tags, yes I do. One year for muzzy in the blues when they had 3 tags, all three went to guys with 6,4 and 2 points. Call me a whiner cause it did!
I agree these things happen, but you essentially would eliminate Quality Tags for the Youth, because they would never be able to achieve the high point totals. after 10 years, you still wouldn't have eliminated the highest point totals. I agree folks have been waiting their whole hunting lives (some of them) for quality elk tags, but if this gets implemented a 20 year old that currently has 5 points won't be able to draw a quality tag for elk until they are well into their 60's or later depending on how many people drop out of the application process......hunting recruitment would fall further and quicker than it already is. How would you keep youth interested if they have no hope of drawing?
Post by: whacker1 on December 09, 2014, 01:09:55 PM
I think the youth tags should be increased, they do have their own category but there isn't enough to go around. My daughter didn't get to use her elk points but I guess there just isn't enough time as a youth to draw from the youth section. I have to disagree with you about youths never drawing a quality elk tag though, even if they put 25 or 50 percent to multiple point holders, they would still be able to draw the other 50 or 75 percent of the tags available for everyone. I just like the idea that at least a certain percent are guaranteed to go to higher point holders.I like the idea of 25% going to higher point holders, if fact, I'd like to see it at 50%. Do I think the guys who have been waiting for 19+ years to draw should have an even better shot at those impossible tags, yes I do. One year for muzzy in the blues when they had 3 tags, all three went to guys with 6,4 and 2 points. Call me a whiner cause it did!
I agree these things happen, but you essentially would eliminate Quality Tags for the Youth, because they would never be able to achieve the high point totals. after 10 years, you still wouldn't have eliminated the highest point totals. I agree folks have been waiting their whole hunting lives (some of them) for quality elk tags, but if this gets implemented a 20 year old that currently has 5 points won't be able to draw a quality tag for elk until they are well into their 60's or later depending on how many people drop out of the application process......hunting recruitment would fall further and quicker than it already is. How would you keep youth interested if they have no hope of drawing?
I get what you are saying, but in these units that have 1-2 permits - some quality elk, sheep, goat, deer.
- Take that same 20 year old that has 5 points today. add 10 years and now he has 15 points and is 30 years old and he is still behind the guy that has 27-28 points.
--Take that same 20 year old and now add 20 years. Now he is 40 years old and has 25 points and he is still behind the guy that has 36-37 points.
---Take that same 20 year old and now add 30 years. Now he is 50 years old and has 35 points and he is still behind the guy that has 35 points.
----same 20 year old and now add 40 years. Now he is 60 years old and has 45 points and he is still behind the guy that has 34 points.
At age 66 that same 20 year old died and never had a prayer to draw a tag for any of the OIL species.......Why would he put in for any of the OIL if he has no chance to draw......This is where the revenue starts to go down for WDFW, when the youth behind us and some that are among us that don't have max points that will never draw figure it out and quit applying. So now you lose the hunters in the revenue game that are on the upper end of the age spectrum that age out of the hunter pool.......In addition, at an increasing rate you will now lose the younger hunter pool. This will make it easier for some and possibly everyone to draw, but WDFW will continue to lose revenue year over year, because the pool of applicants is dwindling.
That Youth can never draw a sheep tag, because the number of higher point holders will never be reduced enough for him to be in the pool of max points. And there aren't enough permits/tags for there to be a existing point system permit/tag for the random pool. It would only be those in the max point pool.
Every year that goes by under the current point system makes it bit more difficult to draw the quality tags, because of the folks that have 20 points going into 2015 have 400 applications for each hunt they apply for. That same 20 year old with 5 points moves to 6 in 2016 and has 36 applications for each hunt based on the squaring rule in our system.
Following year the max point holder has 21 points and 441 applications, where the person has 49.
use the numbers I mentioned earlier
at age 40 - he has 25 points, which equals 625 applications vs. the max point holder at 1369 application off his 37 points
This idea/concept will hurt the youthful hunters in the state of Washington. I encourage everyone to think hard about their children, grand children, nieces and nephews, neighbors, etc....because this will hurt them more than most of us.
Post by: Bob33 on December 09, 2014, 01:41:44 PM
In 2013, 26 “any ram” sheep tags were awarded to a pool of 13,994 applications. There were six applications with 20 points, and six with 19. If 25% of the tags were given to the applications with 20 points, all six of those would draw. Next year, the six applications with 19 points would also draw.
In the third year the 448 applications with 18 points in 2013 would be on the top rung. They would compete for six tags. The vast majority would not draw, even with a new system of allocating 25 percent to the top points holders.
Meanwhile, the applicants with 17 points or less would have their odds drop. Those just one behind the leaders would probably feel most slighted. They would most likely never in their lifetime be on the top run, since there are 448 ahead of them competing for six tags per year.
When new hunters look at the odds of drawing, how many fewer would choose not to enter the special permit game?
Post by: jasnt on December 09, 2014, 01:59:35 PM
Thanks for the well written update. I'm in favor of most of the recommendations, I think WDFW is trying to listen to the hunting community on most of these issues. THANKS WDFW!
Points System
I think it's a good idea to give 25% to the highest point holders, Utah gives 50% and I think it works great. 25% is very conservative but gives our hunters who have been applying forever a little more hope, nothing wrong with that, 75% still goes to anyone.
Baiting
I agree that a few small rules would be far better than banning baiting altogether, address the problems and don't eliminate it altogether.
Equipment
Those all seem like good reasonable recommendations, the western states are way behind on crossbow hunting, nothing wrong with allowing that in modern seasons, might have to give it a go myself.
Cougar
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
OIL Species
That mostly sounds fair enough to me, although I think they should look closely at moose numbers in some units. I am pretty convinced a few areas are declining. I do think they could double the number of goat areas and give out more goat permits statewide.
:tup:CougarThey were adamant that "quotas" was not the correct term...whats listed in the regulations they consider "harvest guidelines". A lot of the discussion seemed to center around the harvest of sub-adults not counting in those harvest guidelines. Maybe wingshooter can add his perspective...
Did it sound like quotas will increase, another month will not help us in the Northeast unless we get more quota because seasons get closed by the low quotas. We saw 10 cougars this year while hunting. CRAZY
I almost forgot....they plan to DOUBLE spring bear permits in NE Washington.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 09, 2014, 02:08:58 PM
Post by: whacker1 on December 09, 2014, 02:33:17 PM
I think more and more people will just start putting in for quality, bull and cow permits when they draw multiseason elk. I for one will be done applying and playing this draw game once I draw my quality elk, I have too many points to give up right now. Too many years have gone by since I've had a normal hunting camp, my elk hunting partner and I have turned to Idaho to have a yearly elk hunt. He's tired of waiting for me to draw my quality tag, we have both wanted to start hunting otc for archery on the west side for years. My time is running short, I'm 45 years old and not getting younger. I'm just about to put in for a not so quality elk tag just to get drawn and get on with my hunting life. :twocents: My biggest concern is that in the near future the entire state will be draw only, then they will force everyone to buy permit apps.
I completely understand your position and I hunt out of state at least every third year if not more frequently for this reason. Our style of Game Management and number of hunters precludes us from being able to draw the most desirable tags as a collective. if you want to increase your odds, you truly have to put in for the tags that are less sought after. Doesn't mean that they are bad tags, but they are definitely not in the same visibility as the top 20 or so quality hunts. I agree with others, that if they want to improve the odds, they have to figure out a way to limit applications. It still takes luck when competing against 17,000 of yoru closest friends for a moose tag.
Post by: trophyhunt on December 09, 2014, 03:18:57 PM
Post by: buckfvr on December 09, 2014, 03:38:39 PM
Post by: whacker1 on December 09, 2014, 03:39:14 PM
One absolute way to increase odds for the OIL tags, go back to when you had to purchase the tags first to put in. Most people wouldn't shell out the money to apply, in my opinion.
I would agree
other suggested narrowing the number of choices would help, which I would agree with.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 09, 2014, 03:43:48 PM
Seems as though wdfw is in a short term game of pacifying hunters with focus on their form of harvest, as in our monies........they want our money and dont want to fix things or right wrongs to earn it.......... :twocents:They're probably too uncertain (pessimistic maybe?) about the long term. Predators and greenies, kind of look at the future of steelhead fishing as an example--the lawsuit that stopped hatchery plants in PS region.
Post by: Curly on December 10, 2014, 08:11:54 AM
How come Dave Ware is still involved in things like the draw system? Shouldn't he be in his new wolf position?"For example, 75% of the any moose tags went to applications with 10 or more points. If highest point holders is defined as anyone with 10 or more points, then giving 25% to them changes nothing"When I pointed out the origninal 10pt cutoff and the stats Bob posted...that is when Dave Ware said they are re-evaluating the cutoff "point". I think they realized 10+ pts already get the majority of the tags...Dave was clear that they want to set the limit where it makes an appreciable difference to draw odds. To me, this means that you basically have to set it so that the 25% of tags are given to the max point holders (or something close).
If it's true that this changes nothing, then I am fine with that "change". :tup:
If we look at "any moose" tags as an example...there are 1504 people who had 15+ points in 2013. There are 82 any moose permits. If we reserved 25% of them for 15+ point holders (21 permits) it would take 72 years for all of the 15+ point holders to get a tag under this new system designed to appease the high point holders. If we set the cutoff at 19 points, then the 12 applicants with those 19 or more points would be guaranteed a tag the following year. I don't believe it is appropriate that high point holders should be entitled to tags...WDFW says they get a lot of feedback about hunters with high point totals wanting improved draw odds...BS...all levels of point holders want improved draw odds! If WDFW implements this, it will only result in substantial point creep and more complaints about absurdly low draw odds. Like all ponzi schemes...a few in at the base level could stand to do quite well though.
If WDFW's objective is to improve draw odds the easiest thing they could do is find ways to reduce applicants. I personally beleive we could come up with revenue neutral options and still improve draw odds. I'm starting to think maybe there are a few upcoming WDFW retirees who have not drawn their moose/sheep/quality elk etc tags yet...time to make a few changes so they have something to do in retirement :dunno: :chuckle:
His category system is idiotic and the tweaks he's talking about is just making it even worse.
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 10, 2014, 08:29:49 AM
As for the idea of giving the last 25% of the permits available to people who have been financially supporting the game department for the last 10-20 years? What's wrong with that? I support it even though it doesn't do much.
For sum reason we always have these newbies entering the hunting sport with this sense of entitlement that they should get the best tags within a few years of entering the draw. I feel the best tags should go to the people who are patient and keep putting in year after year.
Most people who put in for the OIL tags only put in for a few years and they give up. They will still have the chance of drawing the first 75% of the tags and I feel that is good enough.
As for hunter recruitment? The more hunters you see in washington- the less Opportunity for the rest of us. The state is clear that they feel there is pretty of wildlife and we already have twice as many hunters as we have elk.
I agree that the best way to fix this is to simply limit the choices or do away with the categories. Before the days of the categories we had to choose if we wanted a easy draw (antlerless) or hold out for something better (quality). You couldn't choose both but the whiners (those who were holding out but still wanted an antlerless tag without losing there points) convinced the state to give us the category system. And the state won't pass on revenue or an easy fix and now here we sit about 5 years later trying to apply more band aids.
One thing is for sure though: Everytime the state applies a band aid- hunters get more to complain about.
Post by: Bob33 on December 10, 2014, 09:00:15 AM
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it is broke, don’t screw it up even worse with some cockamamie scheme.
Post by: huntnphool on December 10, 2014, 10:06:23 AM
Any changes made mid-stream to an already screwed-up, convoluted permit draw system will do nothing but possibly appease a very small number of individuals while at the same time aggravating the vast majority of other applicants. That will drive more hunters away.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it is broke, don’t screw it up even worse with some cockamamie scheme.
Bingo! :tup:
Post by: huntnphool on December 10, 2014, 10:09:54 AM
Post by: bobcat on December 10, 2014, 10:27:03 AM
Any changes made mid-stream to an already screwed-up, convoluted permit draw system will do nothing but possibly appease a very small number of individuals while at the same time aggravating the vast majority of other applicants. That will drive more hunters away.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If it is broke, don’t screw it up even worse with some cockamamie scheme.
Bingo! :tup:
Agree 100%!
Post by: npaull on December 10, 2014, 10:30:28 AM
Quote
kind of look at the future of steelhead fishing as an example--the lawsuit that stopped hatchery plants in PS region
Not to thread hijack, but you're confused about this - the lawsuit against hatchery steelhead was driven largely by people who want MORE steelhead - people like my brother, who is a steelhead fishing guide! The data is very clear that the hatcheries are hurting wild steelhead and driving down numbers, not helping them.
Post by: idahohuntr on December 10, 2014, 10:39:07 AM
On the tag return, are you asking about if you draw something like a cow tag and a quality bull tag you would like to return the cow tag and have your points restored? If so, it seems like that was mentioned but for draw odds reasons didn't get much support?
Methow deer, recent fires, extra doe tags etc., makes me think Methow deer status would be a good agenda item for the spring meeting.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 11:04:19 AM
Post by: Little Dave on December 10, 2014, 11:09:15 AM
Seems as though wdfw is in a short term game of pacifying hunters with focus on their form of harvest, as in our monies........they want our money and dont want to fix things or right wrongs to earn it.......... :twocents:They're probably too uncertain (pessimistic maybe?) about the long term. Predators and greenies, kind of look at the future of steelhead fishing as an example--the lawsuit that stopped hatchery plants in PS region.
Quote from: npaull
Not to thread hijack, but you're confused about this - the lawsuit against hatchery steelhead was driven largely by people who want MORE steelhead - people like my brother, who is a steelhead fishing guide! The data is very clear that the hatcheries are hurting wild steelhead and driving down numbers, not helping them.
The matter of hatcheries hurting wild steelhead is debatable. At a very minimum, hatcheries produce fish that generate revenue to support wild fish recovery expenses. Toxic Puget Sound, lost habitat, and offshore fishing operations kill fish. The idea that hatcheries can be removed without cleaning up Puget Sound, improving habitat, and negotiating harvest with the tribes, Canada, Japan, and Alaska is an unbelievable fairy tale. The dams and the DFW see a way to cut costs and will cherry pick studies to use as "best science" to support budget goals. Guides can be misguided.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 10, 2014, 11:23:51 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 10, 2014, 11:34:02 AM
No discussion on returning tags or tag reductions for the methow.
On the tag return, are you asking about if you draw something like a cow tag and a quality bull tag you would like to return the cow tag and have your points restored? If so, it seems like that was mentioned but for draw odds reasons didn't get much support?
Methow deer, recent fires, extra doe tags etc., makes me think Methow deer status would be a good agenda item for the spring meeting.
Yep that's what I was talking about.
What did you mean by "for draw odds didn't get much support."
Does that mean they don't think it would increase odds of drawing or do they think that restoring someone's points and giving the tag to someone else would hurt other peoples chances of drawing in the future?
Post by: idahohuntr on December 10, 2014, 11:43:49 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 10, 2014, 11:52:38 AM
That it would decrease everyone's draw odds. No risk in applying for multiple categories anymore.
Gotcha... And your probably spot one with that assumption.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 11:59:52 AM
theyve already done enough to ruin draw odds (categories) that they just need to leave it alone!That it would decrease everyone's draw odds. No risk in applying for multiple categories anymore.
Gotcha... And your probably spot one with that assumption.
Post by: skeeter 20i on December 10, 2014, 12:36:16 PM
I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
:yeah: IMHO It is a risk that is taken when putting in for multiple permits during the same time frame to increase your odds of drawing. The person doing so knew the risks and submitted anyway they should have to live with the results.
Post by: steeleywhopper on December 10, 2014, 01:05:51 PM
I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
Don't let me return it, just let them fill both tags! Heck the guys earned the points and played the game long enough to finally draw, let him fill both tags if drawn. Charge him for a second tag if draws two permits for same animal.
Post by: bobcat on December 10, 2014, 01:14:02 PM
I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
Don't let me return it, just let them fill both tags! Heck the guys earned the points and played the game long enough to finally draw, let him fill both tags if drawn. Charge him for a second tag if draws two permits for same animal.
That's worse than the idea to allow permits be returned and points restored. It would provide a great incentive for more people to apply in all categories, and odds of drawing just one permit will get worse for everybody.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 10, 2014, 01:19:44 PM
:bash:I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
Don't let me return it, just let them fill both tags! Heck the guys earned the points and played the game long enough to finally draw, let him fill both tags if drawn. Charge him for a second tag if draws two permits for same animal.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 01:34:03 PM
I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
Don't let me return it, just let them fill both tags! Heck the guys earned the points and played the game long enough to finally draw, let him fill both tags if drawn. Charge him for a second tag if draws two permits for same animal.
People with lots of points in 2009 really earned them in each category? :bash: i was unfortunate enough to draw elk and deer in 2008 after having applied for years in both and i got zero points in all my categories... tell me how you earned all those points and i didnt. :bash:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 01:35:36 PM
:yeah: :bdid:I would be 100% against letting people return permits and having their points restored. Glad its not getting much attention.
Don't let me return it, just let them fill both tags! Heck the guys earned the points and played the game long enough to finally draw, let him fill both tags if drawn. Charge him for a second tag if draws two permits for same animal.
That's worse than the idea to allow permits be returned and points restored. It would provide a great incentive for more people to apply in all categories, and odds of drawing just one permit will get worse for everybody.
Post by: JBar on December 10, 2014, 01:49:26 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 01:50:34 PM
I'm no math wiz and this may have already been mentioned but what about a 1 yr waiting period to put in again after you draw? I know this doesn't help on the OIL ( lets be realistic, 99% won't ever draw a OIL tag) tags but it would increase the odds for those that haven't drawn right? :dunno:this is a good idea but it wont help a whole lot on the popular hunts.
Post by: JBar on December 10, 2014, 01:57:14 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on December 10, 2014, 01:59:34 PM
I know it wouldn't be much but a little help is better than no help maybe a 2 year wait on Quality tags or a 2 year wait but still able to build points?i still think the best way to improve draw odds is to eliminate the categories. Go back to one app per species. I feel like a broken record here... :chuckle: could throw in a 2 year wait tbough for good measure.
This will never happen because it will kill wdfws application cash cow.
Post by: JBar on December 10, 2014, 02:01:12 PM
Post by: JBar on December 10, 2014, 02:02:48 PM
I do agree with that but like you said the WDFW makes too much cash off the catergory system.I know it wouldn't be much but a little help is better than no help maybe a 2 year wait on Quality tags or a 2 year wait but still able to build points?i still think the best way to improve draw odds is to eliminate the categories. Go back to one app per species. I feel like a broken record here... :chuckle: could throw in a 2 year wait tbough for good measure.
This will never happen because it will kill wdfws application cash cow.
Post by: huntnphool on December 10, 2014, 02:25:01 PM
Seems as though wdfw is in a short term game of pacifying hunters with focus on their form of harvest, as in our monies........they want our money and dont want to fix things or right wrongs to earn it.......... :twocents:They're probably too uncertain (pessimistic maybe?) about the long term. Predators and greenies, kind of look at the future of steelhead fishing as an example--the lawsuit that stopped hatchery plants in PS region.Quote from: npaullNot to thread hijack, but you're confused about this - the lawsuit against hatchery steelhead was driven largely by people who want MORE steelhead - people like my brother, who is a steelhead fishing guide! The data is very clear that the hatcheries are hurting wild steelhead and driving down numbers, not helping them.
The matter of hatcheries hurting wild steelhead is debatable. At a very minimum, hatcheries produce fish that generate revenue to support wild fish recovery expenses. Toxic Puget Sound, lost habitat, and offshore fishing operations kill fish. The idea that hatcheries can be removed without cleaning up Puget Sound, improving habitat, and negotiating harvest with the tribes, Canada, Japan, and Alaska is an unbelievable fairy tale. The dams and the DFW see a way to cut costs and will cherry pick studies to use as "best science" to support budget goals. Guides can be misguided.
+1
Post by: idahohuntr on December 10, 2014, 04:58:54 PM
As for the idea of giving the last 25% of the permits available to people who have been financially supporting the game department for the last 10-20 years? What's wrong with that? I support it even though it doesn't do much.I have not heard anyone suggest that the system should favor new applicants...folks mostly accept that giving the upper point holders 200-400 times greater odds of drawing is a sufficient advantage. It seems like many folks are eager to look at ways to improve everyone's draw odds; and most of them are fully aware that doing so will require sacrifices. :dunno:
For sum reason we always have these newbies entering the hunting sport with this sense of entitlement that they should get the best tags within a few years of entering the draw. I feel the best tags should go to the people who are patient and keep putting in year after year.
Post by: lhrbull on December 10, 2014, 06:14:59 PM
Post by: steeleywhopper on December 10, 2014, 06:48:30 PM
i still think the best way to improve draw odds is to eliminate the categories. Go back to one app per species. I feel like a broken record here... :chuckle: could throw in a 2 year wait tbough for good measure.
This will never happen because it will kill wdfws application cash cow.
[/quote]
I am all for this. I remember the days you had to wait 3 or 4 years to apply if you drew a big bull tag. You could not hunt on opening morning you had to wait till Monday to hunt if you applied for a special elk permit. Go back to 2 choices and a minimum 2 year wait to apply again if drawn. Sell all leftover permits on a first come first served basis like Wyoming does.
Post by: Bango skank on December 10, 2014, 09:45:35 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 12, 2014, 01:41:16 PM
How are they going to handle the draw where there is only 1 tag available?
Post by: whacker1 on December 12, 2014, 02:11:58 PM
I would assume that WDFW will "round down" for those 25% tags, just like they do for permit points?
How are they going to handle the draw where there is only 1 tag available?
3- 4options:
1. top/max point holders gets that tag every year.
2. or maybe that 1 tag only goes to the random pool
3. first come first serve on the draw (assumes they draw first and then evaluate max point holders), and whoever draws/draws
4. take the total pool of tags and make sure that only 25% go to max point holder as a collective rather than hunt by hunt or unit by unit.
It is not a well thought out plan just yet, so I would guess any of those 4 would be viable and possibly more options
Post by: Special T on December 12, 2014, 02:24:34 PM
Post by: huntnphool on December 12, 2014, 02:27:34 PM
You guys can discuss what color lipstick looks best, but its still going on a pig, not a supermodel!
Agreed, just wondering if units with say 10 permits available will be allocated 2 tags for the top 25%, rounded down, or 3 tags to them, rounded up?
Post by: Special T on December 12, 2014, 02:29:59 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 12, 2014, 02:32:09 PM
or every fourth year only the top point holders are entered into the draw for that tag and everyone else just adds a point.I would assume that WDFW will "round down" for those 25% tags, just like they do for permit points?
How are they going to handle the draw where there is only 1 tag available?
3- 4options:
1. top/max point holders gets that tag every year.
2. or maybe that 1 tag only goes to the random pool
3. first come first serve on the draw (assumes they draw first and then evaluate max point holders), and whoever draws/draws
4. take the total pool of tags and make sure that only 25% go to max point holder as a collective rather than hunt by hunt or unit by unit.
It is not a well thought out plan just yet, so I would guess any of those 4 would be viable and possibly more options
Post by: idahohuntr on December 12, 2014, 02:34:14 PM
Hopefully they will do a little math themselves and figure out that what they are proposing is a bad joke. I can see we have enough folks just on this forum that if we need to simulate how any change will affect the draw, point creep issues, etc. that we can probably provide a fairly strong, quantitative rebuttal. The only way they can possibly support this vague proposal is if they have some really sound logic as to why a few top point holders are entitled to the states resources more than the several hundred percent draw odds increase they already enjoy. I'm dying to here that justification, particularly in the context of recruitment and retention of hunters as outlined in the game management plan!!!
Post by: huntnphool on December 12, 2014, 02:43:38 PM
They've provided no specifics and my take is they haven't put much thought into it...although they did look into whether they could implement it in the 2015 license season :yike: (they can't). It very much has the flavor "we have to pass it to find out whats in it" :yike::tup:
Hopefully they will do a little math themselves and figure out that what they are proposing is a bad joke. I can see we have enough folks just on this forum that if we need to simulate how any change will affect the draw, point creep issues, etc. that we can probably provide a fairly strong, quantitative rebuttal. The only way they can possibly support this vague proposal is if they have some really sound logic as to why a few top point holders are entitled to the states resources more than the several hundred percent draw odds increase they already enjoy. I'm dying to here that justification, particularly in the context of recruitment and retention of hunters as outlined in the game management plan!!!
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 16, 2014, 06:35:35 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on December 16, 2014, 08:03:23 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2014, 08:42:28 AM
Hasn't the multiplier already improved the odds of the higher point holders? Not taking a shot at your post Carbon, just saying in general the higher point guys already have a significant advantage in a drawing with dismal odds but they do still have it better. If you want better odds put in for another state or by raffle tags.There is no "multiplier" per se. Points are squared. Someone with 20 points has essentially 400 (20 times 20) names in the drawing hat. Someone with 10 points has 100 (10 times 10) names in the hat. Someone with one point has one name in the hat. The person with one name in the hat can draw, but the person with 20 points has a 400 times greater chance.
Post by: Rainier10 on December 16, 2014, 10:27:03 AM
Yes that is what I meant, you already have more chances because of the squaring of your points. And each year the guys with less than max points squared have less of a chance of drawing. The guys with max points already always have the better odds of drawing.Hasn't the multiplier already improved the odds of the higher point holders? Not taking a shot at your post Carbon, just saying in general the higher point guys already have a significant advantage in a drawing with dismal odds but they do still have it better. If you want better odds put in for another state or by raffle tags.There is no "multiplier" per se. Points are squared. Someone with 20 points has essentially 400 (20 times 20) names in the drawing hat. Someone with 10 points has 100 (10 times 10) names in the hat. Someone with one point has one name in the hat. The person with one name in the hat can draw, but the person with 20 points has a 400 times greater chance.
I recall, you I believe, posting how the odds go down each year based on the squaring going up and only so many people being eliminated from the pool by drawing a tag.
Anyways the system is what it is and there is no point in messing it up more.
Post by: huntnphool on December 16, 2014, 10:38:07 AM
Yes that is what I meant, you already have more chances because of the squaring of your points. And each year the guys with less than max points squared have less of a chance of drawing. The guys with max points already always have the better odds of drawing.Hasn't the multiplier already improved the odds of the higher point holders? Not taking a shot at your post Carbon, just saying in general the higher point guys already have a significant advantage in a drawing with dismal odds but they do still have it better. If you want better odds put in for another state or by raffle tags.There is no "multiplier" per se. Points are squared. Someone with 20 points has essentially 400 (20 times 20) names in the drawing hat. Someone with 10 points has 100 (10 times 10) names in the hat. Someone with one point has one name in the hat. The person with one name in the hat can draw, but the person with 20 points has a 400 times greater chance.
I recall, you I believe, posting how the odds go down each year based on the squaring going up and only so many people being eliminated from the pool by drawing a tag.
Anyways the system is what it is and there is no point in messing it up more.
Ive said it before, the GMAC meetings do not represent the hunting community as a whole, but rather is made up of a select few, from individual groups with nothing more than their own self interest in mind.
You would think that these "group leaders" would be speaking for their group as a whole, but that is not how it works. There are a couple squeaky wheels, and as the saying goes....
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2014, 11:01:10 AM
I recall, you I believe, posting how the odds go down each year based on the squaring going up and only so many people being eliminated from the pool by drawing a tag.Applicants with high numbers of points all typically see a slight decrease in draw odds each year. That is because there are a large number of applicants with low numbers of points.
Think about this extreme (unrealistic, but illustrative) example: for a certain specie there are ten applicants with 20 points. Each of the ten has 400 names in the hat. Combined, they have 4000 names in the hat. There are also 1000 applicants with one point. Combined, they have 1000 names in the hat. There are a total of 5000 names in the hat. The ten applicants with 20 points have 80% of the names in the hat.
Next year, the 10 applicants with 20 points will each have 21 points. Each has 441 names in the hat. Combined, they have 4410 names in the hat. The 1000 applicants that had one point now have two points each, and therefore each now has four names in the hat. Combined, they have 4000 names in the hat. There are now 8410 names in the hat. The ten applicants with the most points now have only 52% of the chances to draw.
Because there are so many applicants with few points, and because their odds increase more rapidly they pull down the odds for those with high point levels.
Going from one point to two points increases your number of names in the hat by a factor of four. Going from 20 points to 21 points increases your number of names in the hat by a factor of 1.1.
The tipping point is usually somewhere in the middle: currently those with less than ten points see an increase each year, those with more typically see a slight decrease.
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 16, 2014, 12:34:50 PM
I'm simply stating to increase one personal odds of drawing over the next guys odds of drawing without creating a whole list of what if's. Increase the multiplier. Instead of squaring (multiplier of 2) the point total cube (multiplier of 3) the point total. In example squared: 20 points = 400 applications. Cubed: 20 points = 8000 applications; 21 points = 441. Cubed 21 points = 9261. All the while those entering the game still only have 1 name in the hat. Although those entering the game would accumulate points faster they would not catch up as quick. Leaving the edge to the top point holders.
The difference in awarding of permits to those with higher points is probably similar to the 25% change the state is proposing but it would eliminate a lot of the questions people have as to how to implement the change.
And as to putting in "outta state" I have hunted in other states but I see the value in drawing a descent tag in my home state. Therefore I'm committed to the washington state draw and I appreciate getting a point when I don't draw. It sure beats the sharp stick in the eye you could be getting.
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2014, 12:41:50 PM
Instead of squaring (multiplier of 2) the point total cube (multiplier of 3) the point total. In example squared: 20 points = 400 applications. Cubed: 20 points = 8000 applications; 21 points = 441. Cubed 21 points = 9261.OK. You're referring to the exponent that points are raised to. That would increase the odds more for those with more points.
When it gets right down to it, there are far too many applicants for far too few permits and tags. 49 Degrees North moose had 14,149 applications for 21 tags in 2013. 14,128 of them are not going to draw regardless of how the game is played.
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 16, 2014, 12:54:47 PM
Instead of squaring (multiplier of 2) the point total cube (multiplier of 3) the point total. In example squared: 20 points = 400 applications. Cubed: 20 points = 8000 applications; 21 points = 441. Cubed 21 points = 9261.OK. You're referring to the exponent that points are raised to. That would increase the odds more for those with more points.
When it gets right down to it, there are far too many applicants for far too few permits and tags. 49 Degrees North moose had 14,149 applications for 21 tags in 2013. 14,128 of them are not going to draw regardless of how the game is played.
Correct. In one year, in one catagorie there is not enough animals for everyone who puts in. But we as hunters need to decide if we want to hold out for years for that one special permit or put in for different permits with better odds of drawing.
I think one of the best examples is late entiat rifle. Every year more people put in for it even though the are giving out fewer tags. Many people are quietly killing bigger bucks in different units and laughing at those complaining how difficult it is to draw that tag.
Post by: bobcat on December 16, 2014, 01:05:53 PM
The company that does the draw would likely need to purchase a new computer!
Post by: Bob33 on December 16, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
Cube points instead of squaring? :yike:They would just hire more monkeys to count the names in the hat.
The company that does the draw would likely need to purchase a new computer!
Post by: csaaphill on December 17, 2014, 01:35:50 AM
crossbows? good! been wanting them to ok that for years.
baiting :dunno: not my thing but there are always lots of wild apples and plums in spots I hunt and or wheat so...
bear if a issue lengthen the season.
Couger too go from Jan 1st to Dec 31st year around basically.
Post by: Bigshooter on December 17, 2014, 03:47:16 AM
Post by: csaaphill on December 18, 2014, 02:44:38 AM
After reading the whole thread I am impressed that everyone can agree to so much stuff :chuckle: With so much agreement it should be really easy for WDFW to keep everyone happy. :chuckle::chuckle:
ya didn't see much I disageed with.
Post by: highside74 on January 17, 2015, 04:27:53 PM
Did they talk about cameras on bows?? Thanks for the update been wondering what was going on!
The meeting I went to in Tacoma I talked with them about gopros. They said they wouldn't give anyone a ticket for having a gopro on their bow because it's not aiding in the taking of game in any way. I spoke with 2 officers and 2 officials and got the same response from all 4.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 17, 2015, 04:33:30 PM
I personally am not going to risk it, I have the head strap mount that works pretty well.Did they talk about cameras on bows?? Thanks for the update been wondering what was going on!
The meeting I went to in Tacoma I talked with them about gopros. They said they wouldn't give anyone a ticket for having a gopro on their bow because it's not aiding in the taking of game in any way. I spoke with 2 officers and 2 officials and got the same response from all 4.
Post by: highside74 on January 17, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
I personally am not going to risk it, I have the head strap mount that works pretty well.Did they talk about cameras on bows?? Thanks for the update been wondering what was going on!
The meeting I went to in Tacoma I talked with them about gopros. They said they wouldn't give anyone a ticket for having a gopro on their bow because it's not aiding in the taking of game in any way. I spoke with 2 officers and 2 officials and got the same response from all 4.
A lot of people are using them to film themselves not the animal.