Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:50:46 AM
this system if you will, would increase quality across the board almost instantly for every deer hunter in the state. it would also dramatically increase draw odds. some more than others but it would certainly affect the numbers no matter what your opinion is, that's just math.
ill use myself as an example. i am and have always been primarily a west side blacktail hunter. ive killed some really nice blacktail bucks and i love hunting them. however the way i hunt is as follows. i will start the season hunting alpine mule deer, either with my bow or rifle. if no buck i fall back to hunting west side general and late seasons where ive had the lions share of success in my hunting life. this would take me out of one of those hunts every year, making room and opportunity better for another guy. this year i would be out of both. i have enough points to pretty assuredly draw a poluse tag and access to hunt it. thats the hunt i want to do this year as ive never taken a white tail. so if i had to choose you guys wouldnt see me up high, or late on the west side or my name in the hat for a mule deer rut hunt. i can tell you now even though i want to hunt the poluse im still putting in for the mule deer hunts and if i draw both ill send the poluse tag back to fish ang game.
wouldn't you like to see my name out of that hat? wouldn't you east side guys like to see the west side hunter that hasn't seen a legal buck in 10 years of hunting mule deer but shoots a 2 point black tail every November out of your woods? how about you blacktail freaks that actually know what your doing, wouldnt you like to see the west side guy that uses blacktail as a fall back hunt from his first year trying the high hunt not crashing through your alder patch? i wont even start on the high hunt since ill end up derailing my own thread ranting about that one.
instead of the classic and pointless for or against poll i though a example of what the dispersion could be would be more interesting. so if you had to choose, it was already a done deal and bitching was pointless what would it be?
Post by: Miles on May 13, 2015, 06:56:38 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:58:05 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:58:49 AM
Did Bigtex put you up to this? :chuckle:
dont know who that is. like i said this has been my rant around the fire for years
Post by: dscubame on May 13, 2015, 07:09:28 AM
Post by: CP on May 13, 2015, 07:26:27 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 07:31:31 AM
Post by: vandeman17 on May 13, 2015, 07:32:02 AM
Post by: jackelope on May 13, 2015, 07:37:04 AM
Post by: jackelope on May 13, 2015, 07:38:27 AM
Post by: flcracker on May 13, 2015, 07:43:28 AM
I will add that I'd be more likely to select the high hunt category if the seasons would be longer
I think they'd have to make all the seasons longer for most people to agree with it
Post by: kentrek on May 13, 2015, 08:00:15 AM
There doesn't have to be a giant buck around every corner to make hunting fun...
Not saying that's what you wish longwalker but I can't help but think that's what it would trend into eventually
Post by: grundy53 on May 13, 2015, 08:16:06 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on May 13, 2015, 08:20:37 AM
Post by: emac on May 13, 2015, 08:27:10 AM
I actually have thought about this alot. I would be for a system where hunters had to choose say 4 GMU's that they will hunt for the general seasons. They would also be restricted to applying for special hunts within those same GMU's. If drawn for a permit, The permit is all you get, no general season. :twocents:That is an interesting twist and for some reason I like it
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 08:27:35 AM
I don't like the quality over quantity argument...because what would happen in 20 years ? Next thing you know deer will be just like elk and people would want to do the entire state permit only......whose gona start hunting if you have to invest all this money to not get to hunt ? Hunter numbers would surely drop
There doesn't have to be a giant buck around every corner to make hunting fun...
Not saying that's what you wish longwalker but I can't help but think that's what it would trend into eventually
I'd love the whole state to be permit but that's a way longer streach . I'd actually consider this a compromise between the two camps
Post by: BULLBLASTER on May 13, 2015, 08:30:15 AM
. If drawn for a permit, The permit is all you get, no general season. :twocents::yeah: this is a great idea! I have thought about this a lot also. If you draw in multiple categories you need to choose one. I would also be on board with only being able to apply for oils OR deer and elk like idaho. Either would go a long ways to increqsing peoples draw odds.
Post by: pd on May 13, 2015, 08:30:24 AM
Post by: Woodchuck on May 13, 2015, 08:37:41 AM
Re: Washington deer seasons. The system ain't broke, don't fix it.The system is very broke IMO
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 08:39:18 AM
Re: Washington deer seasons. The system ain't broke, don't fix it.The system is very broke IMO
Yup
Post by: Tbar on May 13, 2015, 08:43:28 AM
I agree when you factor in population densities, hunter densities, and the lack of access, the best option is state wide permit only.
Post by: kentrek on May 13, 2015, 08:48:22 AM
I don't like the quality over quantity argument...because what would happen in 20 years ? Next thing you know deer will be just like elk and people would want to do the entire state permit only......whose gona start hunting if you have to invest all this money to not get to hunt ? Hunter numbers would surely drop
There doesn't have to be a giant buck around every corner to make hunting fun...
Not saying that's what you wish longwalker but I can't help but think that's what it would trend into eventually
I'd love the whole state to be permit but that's a way longer streach . I'd actually consider this a compromise between the two camps
I was talking about the drop in hunter numbers and lack of new hunters....obviously no one wishes for that but I can't help but think that's what would happen
There's already very few young people hunting !
If you think it will help hunting as whole then I cant blame ya for wanting the change but I think it will just help the few hunters that stick around manage to get a decent buck every few years
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 08:48:28 AM
I like your idea longwalker.
It's one I plan on Pursuing with f&g I know it's a long process but I'd love to be a part of getting something like this in front of them in some official type manner
Post by: Tbar on May 13, 2015, 08:51:00 AM
I actually have thought about this alot. I would be for a system where hunters had to choose say 4 GMU's that they will hunt for the general seasons. They would also be restricted to applying for special hunts within those same GMU's. If drawn for a permit, The permit is all you get, no general season. :twocents:4 gmus would suffice me if I start hunting Entiat, go visit friends in Colville, then head home hunt my favorite blacktail gmu, and still a different blacktail area for late buck (this is actually a season I experienced before I had a family).
Post by: CoryTDF on May 13, 2015, 08:54:34 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 09:11:47 AM
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2015, 09:33:00 AM
Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality. Lots don't care about anything except being able to go every year, http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86231.msg1080089.html#msg1080089 regardless what the long term outcome is.
I believe we will be permit for everything soon, and then those that refused to look at alternatives will be whining the most, but only have themselves to blame!
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 09:40:04 AM
Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.
I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2015, 09:44:27 AM
Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.
I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal
You are assuming everyone wants to hunt whitetail.
Post by: h20hunter on May 13, 2015, 09:53:26 AM
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2015, 10:10:45 AM
Interesting link of deer harvest by state.
http://www.deerfriendly.com/deer-management-strategy-and-hunter-success-by-state
I don't know how telling people they only get to hunt this area in our state is a good thing. Is "good" hunting better than no hunting? The amount of money paid to hunt 11 days a year is tough as it is.
Post by: bobcat on May 13, 2015, 10:18:35 AM
Post by: Colville on May 13, 2015, 10:27:34 AM
What's the problem? DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved. "Quality" of animal is not such a problem. It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity. They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events: (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.
The problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently. That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years. The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime. It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2015, 10:43:55 AM
Quote
this system if you will, would increase quality across the board almost instantly for every deer hunter in the state. it would also dramatically increase draw odds. some more than others but it would certainly affect the numbers no matter what your opinion is, that's just math.
I don't think the majority of hunters want the system changed much, but I do like to see this kind of discussion, it's certainly very relevant discussion to be having about deer hunting in WA.
Post by: JBar on May 13, 2015, 10:47:16 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 10:49:41 AM
Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.
I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal
You are assuming everyone wants to hunt whitetail.
Nope just using an example. Your never going to get the general late season you want in the methow no matter what changes are proposed. This would at the least make your draw odds better
Post by: Chesapeake on May 13, 2015, 10:54:16 AM
Aside from that, how would you split the state and where would you draw the line? As I see it the Westside, if using the elk line, doesn't contain an actual "Quality" hunt. Not one I'd burn "quality" points on, and if you look at the application statistics you'd see that most folks agree with that.
I've never even applied for a west side hunt in any category before. And I live and primarily hunt on the west side.
So if you did split the state, how many folks would actually choose west side?
If you made me choose, I'd hunt the East side.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2015, 10:59:59 AM
I believe a reduction in hunting won't change deer populations much. I don't feel we are at our carrying capacity as a state (generally speaking). All the questions as to why.....I don't feel it is due to hunting. IF it was, those areas are fairly easily managed.
The problem is that predators and poachers (same thing) destroy many of these resources that you are trying to protect with the draw system.
Post by: CoryTDF on May 13, 2015, 11:01:53 AM
This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system. Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement. It completely skips the first step in problem solving.
What's the problem? DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved. "Quality" of animal is not such a problem. It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity. They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events: (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.
The problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently. That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years. The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime. It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.
Very well said and valid. People idea of "Quality" and "Trophy" very drastically. I for one like to eat deer. That is ultimately the main reason I hunt. Sure I try to kill a nice buck but in the end it's about feeding the family delicious venison. I also love to hunt and have the opportunity to hunt. If you look at the voting that has been done thus far our mule deer population will take a major hit. What ramifications could follow that? Whitetail taking over mule deer areas and our mule deer populations drastically declining?? From a biological standpoint I don’t see this, the OP's, argument holding water. Having a bigger buck does not necessarily mean that you will have a healthy herd.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 13, 2015, 11:27:44 AM
I would guess one of the first things for your idea would be to get rid of multi-season deer tags?
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2015, 11:40:24 AM
Statewide Deer Harvest Statistics
for the 2014 Hunting Season
Weapon Type General Permit Total Antlered Antlerless Hunters Success
Archery 5,110 157 5,267 2,822 2,445 19,658 26.8%
Modern 24,989 2,580 27,569 23,684 3,885 92,775 29.7%
Muzzleloader 2,117 263 2,380 1,599 781 8,055 29.5%
Statewide Total 32,216 3,000 35,216 28,105 7,11 120,488 29.2%
Post by: bearpaw on May 13, 2015, 11:45:54 AM
Interesting that the link I provided has Idaho, MT, OR all trying to increase their deer populations and WA's goal is to stabilize it.
I believe a reduction in hunting won't change deer populations much. I don't feel we are at our carrying capacity as a state (generally speaking). All the questions as to why.....I don't feel it is due to hunting. IF it was, those areas are fairly easily managed.
The problem is that predators and poachers (same thing) destroy many of these resources that you are trying to protect with the draw system.
I couldn't agree more! :(
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 11:47:47 AM
This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system. Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement. It completely skips the first step in problem solving.
What's the problem? DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved. "Quality" of animal is not such a problem. It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity. They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events: (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.
The problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently. That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years. The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime. It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.
Very well said and valid. People idea of "Quality" and "Trophy" very drastically. I for one like to eat deer. That is ultimately the main reason I hunt. Sure I try to kill a nice buck but in the end it's about feeding the family delicious venison. I also love to hunt and have the opportunity to hunt. If you look at the voting that has been done thus far our mule deer population will take a major hit. What ramifications could follow that? Whitetail taking over mule deer areas and our mule deer populations drastically declining?? From a biological standpoint I don’t see this, the OP's, argument holding water. Having a bigger buck does not necessarily mean that you will have a healthy herd.
I look at the poll a little differently . I'd say all those guys would be hunting mule deer anyway and the guys that choose the other tags may have also been hunting mule deer but now will not be. So the mule deer would in theory take lease of a"hit"
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 11:53:26 AM
I see where you are going and don't disagree with your line of reasoning. However, I can't vote until I'm forced to make a choice.
if you read my original post this is a theoretical situation that i was asking for a choice as if it was already in place. for purposes of seeing what hunter distribution "could" be
Post by: magnumb on May 13, 2015, 12:33:29 PM
I see it happening now and have for the past 2 decades. Of the one or two parcels of state land open in our county to deer hunting and vehicle access, the entire deer season in those very few area's looks like the Indy 500. So really.....how is anyone to truly know what the other 95% of the westside holds in terms of deer populations?
The westside, by virtue of it's population, has a ton of hunters. Lets say that we had to choose a 'side' with no other option but to hunt that one 'side'. Outside of the 'pay for' option and the extremely limited access for hunters to hunt the westside, my guess is that the vast majority of deer hunters would opt to go eastside (more overall area, mulie or whitetail dedicated hunters, less limited access by vehicle or otherwise). Soooooo....the eastside herds get slammed and/or if a system of 'draw only' exists on either 'side', that vastly larger # of hunters choosing the eastside will be sitting at home hoping that the next year they get drawn if not one of the very few (by comparison) to be drawn.
It would be tough to argue that blacktail are a particular species of deer that is easy to hunt and given the terrain, rainy/ugly weather conditions and severely limited access, how many westside hunters will choose the westside over the much more attractive eastside.
There certainly needs to be some changes and as was stated earlier, we need to define 'the' #1 problem and work from there. I'm hearing and believe that hunter populations in many, if not most area's, is a factor that leads to less than memorable hunting excursions. Not so much the harvest factor, but the 'enjoyment of the overall hunt' factor. The Dept. has failed to help us to gain access to huge area's of deer habitat for decades and every year the same gates remain closed and additional gates are closing as well. Most closed gates offer access to walk-ins, horses, bikes and so forth. We all know that on the westside, the first reasonable clear-cut is more than a 1/2 days drag from those closed gates......or alot further. So the Dept. saying, "well, you can hunt there, you just can't drive in" is just an excuse for not having to bargain with the timber companies on our behalf and a weak attempt at a guilt trip on us as a whole.
I still very much enjoy hiking, still hunting, stalking and working hard each year for my deer and/or elk. But I am also not quite as mobile as I once was, had 3 spinal and one neck fusion, 2 heart procedures and I'm just plain.......older. Sure, I might qualify for a 'disabled' qualification for hunting purposes, but who doesn't have physical issues that hunts and is older than 40......?
These timber companies and large land owners that post 'No Vehicle Access' but allow entry for 'recreational purposes' get a tax break for offering the 'recreational' part of their conditions for entry. These are tax breaks that both the timber companies and large land owners and more importantly, the Dept. knows have not enhanced our hunting opportunities and accessible hunting area's one bit!
If the problem is insufficient access to the game animals that only our tags and licenses go towards enhancing and protecting which also then naturally allows for better and safer disbursement of hunting pressure (on both 'sides), the Dept. needs to do what we pay them to do and what we expect them to do. They need to lobby for more hunting access for us.....those that have entrusted them to work diligently to enhance our hunting, fishing and overall recreating activities while paying their salaries to do so. If not advocacting for us through dialogue directly with the timber companies and large land owners, then the Dept. should persistently lobby our legislators who can then review the overall conditions and stipulations regarding the tax break they receive for simply stating, 'For Recreation Use' on their signs.
I believe that if we could get the Dept. to advocate for us as a whole in this regard, much, if not most of these issues, could more easily be resolved or wouldn't be issues at all. That some area's have been opened up to hunting that were not available before, pales by comparison to those lands lost through the use of gates and other negotiable area closures. That unfortunate and completely avoidable ratio will not soon be diminished unless the Dept. becomes a dedicated and adamantly vocal advocate for us and soon. If not and the status quo remains as it has for decades, then as sure as rain, our opportunities will continue to diminish and further threads like this will become even more common place.
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 12:40:57 PM
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2015, 01:40:08 PM
You cited the whitetail season as a example, my point is those targetting whitetail in this state are a small percentage of the overall numbers. The vast majority couldn't care less what the whitetail season is.Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.
I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal
You are assuming everyone wants to hunt whitetail.
Nope just using an example. Your never going to get the general late season you want in the methow no matter what changes are proposed. This would at the least make your draw odds better
And perhaps you have not noticed the season change to the east side deer this year, but I just indeed did get the season I wanted. ;)
Post by: huntnphool on May 13, 2015, 01:41:23 PM
You cited the whitetail season as a example, my point is those targetting whitetail in this state are a small percentage of the overall numbers. The vast majority couldn't care less what the whitetail season is.Yup that's the knee jerk reaction. Now look at it from a management and quality stand point. I'd rather have quality than quantity
The problem with your idea is most hunters here prefer quantity over quality.
I think they could have it. Seasons could certainly be extended after a study of hunter dispersion. I imagine white tail seasons could get pretty liberal
You are assuming everyone wants to hunt whitetail.
Nope just using an example. Your never going to get the general late season you want in the methow no matter what changes are proposed. This would at the least make your draw odds better
And perhaps you have not noticed the season change to the east side deer this year, but I just indeed did get the season I wanted. ;)
Post by: coachcw on May 13, 2015, 01:43:46 PM
Post by: TommyH on May 13, 2015, 01:57:15 PM
Post by: Blacktail Sniper on May 13, 2015, 02:06:55 PM
The problem with a permit only season though I like it is it would be for one udder group. If the tribes would manage along side the wdfw then it could work.if not I'd rather see general seaons
To wish for something like this to happen is reduckuless... :whoo:
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 02:09:08 PM
Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 04:33:35 PM
if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 13, 2015, 04:36:23 PM
I love having a general season in my home state, but if I had to be restricted to say, 4 gmu's, or one side of the state and one species, I would be fine with it. The way I see it is, there is still a general season so I still get to go hunt every year, permit odds would get better, and hunter densities would most likely lighten.
I don't think any of this would be necessary though if WDFW would just address the elephant in the room, and thats predators! We are a predator state, that is a fact. We could do a lot for our mule deer herds by doing the following:
-Restructure Washington Department of Fish and WILDLIFE, into Washington Department of Fish and GAME! We spend a majority of our license dollars on man power and resources for projects that have nothing to do with hunting and fishing. That needs to stop!
-Put a bounty back on Coyote's
-Bring back both bait and hound hunting for bear and cougars
-Start hunting wolves.
We start making our agencies work for us, and control our predators, and we will have plenty of game to go around as well as trophy class animals.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2015, 04:41:02 PM
Let's work to make it truly better.....not just suck less. :tup:
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 05:06:00 PM
if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 13, 2015, 05:11:35 PM
I'm with BLRman....:yeah:
Let's work to make it truly better.....not just suck less. :tup:
Too many people are looking at the issues of this state through the lense of "whats best for ME" or "whats most convienent for ME". The way I look at it is, in the big picture, I really don't care about this season, or next season, I care about 20 season's down the road, when my kids are young adults. Will I be able to hunt with them as I did my dad and grandpa? Will there be enough mule deer then to sustain a season for them to be able to hunt? I would rather see changes now to MY seasons, so in 20 years my kids won't see changes to theirs. Something will eventually give, and if we just live with the way it is now because its better for ME right now, we will lose out in the long run.
Colorado has a statewide permit system for deer. TONS of opportunity for the meat hunter AND trophy hunter alike.
Wyoming got rid of most of their late hunts because they saw their mule deer populations dwindling.
Nevada continues to maintain their restrictions on deer hunting but still allows opportunity for OTC tags and also has some of the best mule deer hunting in the country.
As much as I hate Oregon, they are permit for east side rifle but you can hunt OTC with your bow.
All these states have made some sort of compromise to ensure the future of mule deer and their hunting heritage. Is it too much to ask of our fellow sportmen to give and take a little in this state?
If you restrict a weapon, I will master a new one. If you limit me to a smaller area, I will work even harder until successful. If you limit me to a single species, to save another, I will become a master of their ways. If I have to sell my truck and ride a bike everywhere I go, just to be able to afford the tags, I will do so. I will always fill my deer tags because I will learn, adapt, and over come any obstacle I have to to be successful, because I am a hunter and thats what we do!
Just so there is no confusion, I DO NOT think the OP's idea is the answer, BUT I do think we as hunters need to quit being so calloused to anything that isn't perfectly taylored and completely convienent to them and them alone. We CAN have our cake and eat it too.
Post by: Miles on May 13, 2015, 05:13:08 PM
Here's my two cents... Some people are looking for an "easy trophy buck". Some are also unwilling to put in the work or take chances hunting new areas, so they would rather try experiments like this. I believe the thought process behind it is to increase quality in "their area" and make it an easier hunt.
I have traveled back to hunt WA every year since leaving in 2008 and I rarely see other people while out in the woods. So to answer your question Longwalker, you can keep your name in the hat. We still won't see each other. I enjoy the freedom of being able to go where I want and try new areas for mule deer or whitetail. It's what makes hunting enjoyable to me.
Now if you want to split the state into two states (east and west)... that's another story. ;)
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 05:22:02 PM
Post by: Miles on May 13, 2015, 05:28:05 PM
Make no mistake miles I've never not filled a deer tag and I'm pretty good at getting g away from the crowds. Do t worry you still sound cool but don't think Your the only one.
Wasn't trying to sound cool. Just stating my opinions...oh that's right, yours is the only one that matters.
Have fun with your conversation, I hope you find what you are looking for.
Post by: Gringo31 on May 13, 2015, 05:47:21 PM
I don't think it really matters how you slice it up. There are X amount of deer and X amount of hunters. Harvest rates are 25-30%. Pulling people out of some areas an trying to spread them out more evenly (with a little draw money coming in as well) won't alter the population of deer or the quality.
You mentioned the high buck hunters who aren't really dedicated. The answer isn't to just send non-dedicated hunters to another place. Some guys just like to go on armed hikes to get away from work or the wife.
You can shorten seasons, reduce hunters (opportunity as a whole to the state) but if only half the hunters get to hunt every year....have you increased opportunity? Imagine that...you get either odd or even years to hunt. Less hunters in the field, "easier" hunts? This would only increase the harvest success rate and nothing would change. Some would argue "I get my deer every other year". Money to hunting would drop and "quality" of animal would remain the same.
I think all this is non-sense. People have asked what the problem is in order to come up with a solution to that problem. If this is the top problem with deer hunting in our state.... I'd disagree with you.
Post by: haus on May 13, 2015, 06:22:22 PM
I'm not, the freedom of not being restricted to a specific side or a given area in general season allows for greater flexibility when such things as family needs and work schedule/locations change.if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
Post by: TommyH on May 13, 2015, 06:31:28 PM
I'm not, the freedom of not being restricted to a specific side or a given area in general season allows for greater flexibility when such things as family needs and work schedule/locations change.if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
:yeah:
And to your thinking most hunters don't care about the betterment of hunting, I disagree.
If there is a specific gmu that's needs restrictions on it to help the herd bounce back then fine if that is the case. Your overall blanket approach sucks.
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:33:40 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:42:57 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:44:44 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 06:49:23 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 07:09:25 PM
if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
That's not perception. That's reality. Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season. Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails. And I have done just this a few times.
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 07:14:07 PM
I'm with BLRman....:yeah:
Let's work to make it truly better.....not just suck less. :tup:
Too many people are looking at the issues of this state through the lense of "whats best for ME" or "whats most convienent for ME". The way I look at it is, in the big picture, I really don't care about this season, or next season, I care about 20 season's down the road, when my kids are young adults. Will I be able to hunt with them as I did my dad and grandpa? Will there be enough mule deer then to sustain a season for them to be able to hunt? I would rather see changes now to MY seasons, so in 20 years my kids won't see changes to theirs. Something will eventually give, and if we just live with the way it is now because its better for ME right now, we will lose out in the long run.
Colorado has a statewide permit system for deer. TONS of opportunity for the meat hunter AND trophy hunter alike.
Wyoming got rid of most of their late hunts because they saw their mule deer populations dwindling.
Nevada continues to maintain their restrictions on deer hunting but still allows opportunity for OTC tags and also has some of the best mule deer hunting in the country.
As much as I hate Oregon, they are permit for east side rifle but you can hunt OTC with your bow.
All these states have made some sort of compromise to ensure the future of mule deer and their hunting heritage. Is it too much to ask of our fellow sportmen to give and take a little in this state?
If you restrict a weapon, I will master a new one. If you limit me to a smaller area, I will work even harder until successful. If you limit me to a single species, to save another, I will become a master of their ways. If I have to sell my truck and ride a bike everywhere I go, just to be able to afford the tags, I will do so. I will always fill my deer tags because I will learn, adapt, and over come any obstacle I have to to be successful, because I am a hunter and thats what we do!
Just so there is no confusion, I DO NOT think the OP's idea is the answer, BUT I do think we as hunters need to quit being so calloused to anything that isn't perfectly taylored and completely convienent to them and them alone. We CAN have our cake and eat it too.
I read an article awhile back that said CO has the most unhealthy deer herd of all the western states. And even with the restrictions that they have there deer numbers continue to fall.
WY has very few late hunts are there numbers continue to fall.
I am not aware of any tags that are OTC in NV. And with there restrictions deer numbers continue to fall.
I don't pay attention to OR but I do know there deer numbers continue to fall.
Restricting hunting has little effect on Mule deer numbers across the west.
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 07:24:17 PM
if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
That's not perception. That's reality. Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season. Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails. And I have done just this a few times.
The very thing I think should change . Like I said it would be a sacrifice, one I believe the benefits of which would out way the negatives.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on May 13, 2015, 07:31:11 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 07:35:41 PM
if you are use to hunting all over the state then your idea limits opportunity.Eroding hunter opportunity.
more widely dispersed hunters, better quality animals (over time) and increased draw odds for special permits. huh? doesn't seem like it would be eroded. i would also contend that this would open the door for more diverse seasons by region ultimately leading to longer seasons. i would say increasing hunter experience
I agree that's the perception.And I go back to my origanal post that most hunters don't care about the over all betterment of hunting but instead what ever they want. As I posted I hunt both sides of the state from high buck to late blacktail. I'm willing to give up that ability for better hunting and draw odds.
That's not perception. That's reality. Right now if I am a rifle hunter I can start hunting E WA for mule deer, then come back to W WA and hunt blacktails for another week of early season. Then go hunt whitetails for a week and then finish off the season hunting blacktails. And I have done just this a few times.
The very thing I think should change . Like I said it would be a sacrifice, one I believe the benefits of which would out way the negatives.
So you want to limit hunting for everyone so that hunting is better for you. Why didn't you say that from the start.
The only benefits would be less hunting pressure on whitetails and blacktails. Both of which have pretty solid populations. The down side is the slaughter of mule deer that would happen. With your senario all the westside guys that hold out for a good mule deer buck knowing that if they don't kill a mule deer they can go hunt blacktails and/or whitetails are going to want to make sure they fill there tag with any legal mule deer buck.
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 07:39:28 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 07:46:12 PM
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 07:55:45 PM
Not real sure how you equate lower numbers of hunters in a given area to higher harvest or " slaughter" as you put it. Presure would be lower across the board. For example you wouldn't be hunting 4 different herds thus there would be less pressure on 3 of them. There's that pesky math again
I don't think pressure will be less on Mule deer.
I use to hunt with about 15 guys on the eastside. We didn't shoot a buck unless it was big, because we knew if we didn't kill one we could go hunt blacktails and/or whitetails later on. Being restricted to just the mule deer season, I know that all 15 of us would kill a small buck instead of holding out for a good one if that was the only season we could hunt. Usually only a couple bucks would get killed in my camp.
Post by: haus on May 13, 2015, 08:35:18 PM
Like huntingphool said when it goes to permit only those who were willing to sacrifice nothing will be bitching the most. Something will change in this state whether we like it or not. Hopefully for the betterIt will go permit only because we'll be fighting over bread crumbs of access at the rate things are going. Just since the mid 90s we've lost so much access and our food has lost even more habitat while dealing with a higher density of predators in their remaining habitat.
Your proposal does nothing to address the two core issues that are a threat to every animal species that we are allowed to harvest.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on May 13, 2015, 08:37:53 PM
I read an article awhile back that said CO has the most unhealthy deer herd of all the western states. And even with the restrictions that they have there deer numbers continue to fall.
WY has very few late hunts are there numbers continue to fall.
I am not aware of any tags that are OTC in NV. And with there restrictions deer numbers continue to fall.
I don't pay attention to OR but I do know there deer numbers continue to fall.
Restricting hunting has little effect on Mule deer numbers across the west.
[/quote] Wyoming's herds are taking a beating due in large part to loss of habitat.
Colorado's numbers will always look bad when compared to the glory days of the 80's but numbers are up in recent years. I hunt "the worst unit in the state" and we see lots of bucks and even manage to hang a few high 170 to low 180 deer in camp.
Oregon has the same predator issues we have here in Washington.
Point is, Mule deer need a little help. We can do nothing, or we can attempt to give them a helping hand. Maybe what other states are doing isn't having a big effect (agree to disagree) but at least they are being proactive, and residents are still filling their freezer every year.
Post by: longwalker on May 13, 2015, 08:39:42 PM
Post by: haus on May 13, 2015, 08:54:05 PM
Haus, Let me guess , timber company's and wolves. What do you think will change faster the way we manage the deer or the way we manage the timber company's ( lots of lobbyist ) or wolves ( even more lobbyist) I agree there's more to it but at least trying to start to manage for quality is better than bitching about it online
wolves and timber companies? I'm referring to our general outward population growth that has sucked up thousands of acres of habitat and to a lesser extent overall predator densities, not just our new cuddly puppy.
Post by: Bigshooter on May 13, 2015, 08:54:36 PM
Wyoming's herds are taking a beating due in large part to loss of habitat.
I read an article awhile back that said CO has the most unhealthy deer herd of all the western states. And even with the restrictions that they have there deer numbers continue to fall.
WY has very few late hunts are there numbers continue to fall.
I am not aware of any tags that are OTC in NV. And with there restrictions deer numbers continue to fall.
I don't pay attention to OR but I do know there deer numbers continue to fall.
Restricting hunting has little effect on Mule deer numbers across the west.
Colorado's numbers will always look bad when compared to the glory days of the 80's but numbers are up in recent years. I hunt "the worst unit in the state" and we see lots of bucks and even manage to hang a few high 170 to low 180 deer in camp.
Oregon has the same predator issues we have here in Washington.
Point is, Mule deer need a little help. We can do nothing, or we can attempt to give them a helping hand. Maybe what other states are doing isn't having a big effect (agree to disagree) but at least they are being proactive, and residents are still filling their freezer every year.
[/quote]
I agree that habitat loss is a lot of WY problems and cutting tags numbers have not helped.
The 80's for colorado are a shadow of what they were in the 60's. The article I read about CO having an unhealthy deer herd had to do with to many bucks in the population and how to many bucks hurt the population by out competing fawns for food. The size of deer killed doesn't mean that you have a healthy and growing herd.
I agree mule deer need help. But one thing that I believe has been proven over and over again is that cutting buck tag numbers doesn't grow herds, it only grows lager bucks. And apparently that isn't as good as we all want it to be for herds.
Post by: bobdog86 on May 13, 2015, 09:33:04 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on May 14, 2015, 08:17:02 AM
Your problem seems to be that people hunt one area of the state, then have the opportunity to hunt another area later. You feel this needs to stop in the name of quality.
(Not suggesting this, just trying to understand better)....If the state set seasons as typed below, would that also solve the problem you see?
Statewide Seasons:
Archery- Sept 1-25
Muzzle- Sept 26-Oct 4th
Mod - Oct 10-18th
Late seasons can be added here but they have to be the same east and west to open gmu's.
Etc, etc. IF the set a season for the entire state without exceptions, people wouldn't be able to hunt one area and then be able to hunt another area later. By your argument, this would reduce pressure and increase quality.
Tell me what I don't understand.
I think that people who go to an area that is flooded with poor success, continue to move to find new ground. Eventually, it kind of balances out.
You said..
Quote
Pretty sure I'd be limiting myself too???
At least you agree that your idea is limiting everyone. I believe strongly that limiting hunters isn't the fix to the problem. Truly managing our GAME populations should be. It seems that other ideas that you might come up with to "help" would be to have to pick high buck or general or force us to pick early or late season, east or west. All of these ideas I'm not in favor of and I pretty much only hunt one gmu.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 14, 2015, 09:46:42 AM
Haus, Let me guess , timber company's and wolves. What do you think will change faster the way we manage the deer or the way we manage the timber company's ( lots of lobbyist ) or wolves ( even more lobbyist) I agree there's more to it but at least trying to start to manage for quality is better than bitching about it online
wolves and timber companies? I'm referring to our general outward population growth that has sucked up thousands of acres of habitat and to a lesser extent overall predator densities, not just our new cuddly puppy.
:yeah: Habitat loss is the #1 reason herds decline. WA has too darn many people and just keeps getting more. Civilization continues to creep into the hills taking up prime habitat.
As an example: The FS is proposing to turn the upper#2 Canyon area near Wenatchee into a mountain bike park. There is already a huge area for this called the Foothills Trail System, but the greenies want more. They have lots of $$ and will get this done. More prime habitat lost so the MB'ers have more paces to ride. :twocents: :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 14, 2015, 10:52:39 AM
Post by: longwalker on May 14, 2015, 10:53:34 AM
No for me it's mathematics. If a guy say, like me. Buys a rifle tag and hunts the high hunt, east side gen and late buck west that puts me as part of hunting pressure for all those hunts. Now if I have to choose one by my calculations ( please check my math ) that takes the hunting pressure I apply to two of those hunts away, leaving more room for the guy that chose one of those two I did not. Now multiply by X. No matter how you cut it this WOULD reduce pressure a cross the board for every season . Some more than others but regaurdless all would be affected.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on May 14, 2015, 11:21:43 AM
Gringo, a lot going on in your post but I think what your asking is why I'd want this. It's simple really, dispersed hunting pressure. No loss of seasons, no secrete motive that some how this will all benefit me and me alone since I would somehow be able to take advantage of something the other hundred of thousands couldn't ( that's my favorite replys so far " you just want this to make your hunting better" pretty intelligent reply)
No for me it's mathematics. If a guy say, like me. Buys a rifle tag and hunts the high hunt, east side gen and late buck west that puts me as part of hunting pressure for all those hunts. Now if I have to choose one by my calculations ( please check my math ) that takes the hunting pressure I apply to two of those hunts away, leaving more room for the guy that chose one of those two I did not. Now multiply by X. No matter how you cut it this WOULD reduce pressure a cross the board for every season . Some more than others but regardless all would be affected.
I am not for, or against your idea. But I do not get your reasoning/math.
Say there are 1000 hunters, In a status quo year 333 hunt unit 651, 333 hunt unit 247, and 334 hunt unit 121,= even pressure in all 3 units.
Now say: 50 hunt in 651, 100 hunt in 121, and 850 hunt in 247. If you cut it this way it would reduce pressure in two units, but drastically increase pressure in the last one. I don't get it :dunno:
Post by: Gringo31 on May 14, 2015, 11:30:01 AM
Idaho doesn't require you to pick a weapon. You hunt the season for that weapon.
Would Idaho following Washington's example having to pick a weapon increase opportunity or quality of their hunts?
I disagree that the more you fragment our options, the better it is for us. If you have to pick a weapon, for a specific gmu that seems .... limiting.
I don't think it would change the basic math that X amount of hunters are after X amount of deer and the general success rate. :dunno:
Post by: TommyH on May 14, 2015, 12:03:51 PM
Usually when I feel an area has been pressured by other hunters I go for a "long walk" or go somewhere else.
Maybe your trying to improve road hunting :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: longwalker on May 14, 2015, 12:06:39 PM
With the user name of "long walker" I thought you may have allready knew how to deal with high hunting pressure....
Usually when I feel an area has been pressured by other hunters I go for a "long walk" or go somewhere else.
Maybe your trying to improve road hunting :dunno: :chuckle:
Yeah that's it. You got me
Post by: longwalker on May 14, 2015, 12:12:09 PM
Post by: Curly on May 14, 2015, 12:23:49 PM
The west side of the state is now being managed by the timber companies. So I don't think it will make much difference to limit us to only east or west. If I pay $300 to hunt blacktails on private land, I'm not going to spend any time or money hunting the east side of the state. Same thing is true if I don't purchase an access pass from a timber company- I'll be hunting only public lands on the east side of the state.
Post by: Chesapeake on May 14, 2015, 01:00:29 PM
https://www.wyrecreationnw.com/AvailableAreas/GMapViewer.aspx
Lots of the westside is going lease this year. Much more than the what was permit last year. Much more!!!!!
I foresee lots more Eastside deer hunters in the near future.
Post by: WAcoueshunter on May 14, 2015, 01:24:02 PM
If a guy say, like me. Buys a rifle tag and hunts the high hunt, east side gen and late buck west that puts me as part of hunting pressure for all those hunts. Now if I have to choose one by my calculations ( please check my math ) that takes the hunting pressure I apply to two of those hunts away, leaving more room for the guy that chose one of those two I did not. Now multiply by X. No matter how you cut it this WOULD reduce pressure a cross the board for every season . Some more than others but regaurdless all would be affected.
That's true. Of course, it accomplishes reduced pressure across the board for every season by limiting how many days each person can hunt. Limiting people to a particular unit doesn't reduce overall pressure, it just equalizes it between the units.
Arizona effectively does what you are proposing. You apply for a particular hunt that is limited to a particular weapon and unit. Most hunts last for 5-7 days. There are many hunts with lots of tags that you can draw every year, and others that you need to save up points for. On the plus side, you know the max tax holders that will be competing with you in that unit for those 5-7 days. On the down side, you're going to be limited to the area and unit you drew, and those 5-7 days are your hunting for the year.
Personally, I like our system. The crowds don't bug me, that's just part of the game - finding room for yourself away from the crowds. :twocents:
Post by: Gringo31 on May 14, 2015, 01:33:24 PM
Quote
More pressure right?
Yes, I get that point.
Do you get the point that available reducing days in the field and equally distributing hunters may not change deer harvest?
Post by: Piscatory_5 on May 14, 2015, 01:53:11 PM
This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system. Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement. It completely skips the first step in problem solving.
What's the problem? DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved. "Quality" of animal is not such a problem. It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity. They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events: (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.
The problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently. That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years. The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime. It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.
I'm going to agree with colville pretty much entirely. Many people want a draw only for the elitist atmosphere but I would prefer a more open approach and get rid of all of these special draws,bogus point systems and exclusive 'good ol boys' hunts. What about the folks who have limited hunting days available and the days they are free there is something preventing them taking advantage of those days? I you want to hunt managed herds of deer go pay for private ranch/farm access where they feed the deer and grow trophies every year. Pretty soon trophies won't be trophies, they are supposed to be few and far between and difficult to get, but everyone should have the same opportunity to hunt for them.
Post by: longwalker on May 14, 2015, 01:58:38 PM
QuoteMore pressure right?
Yes, I get that point.
Do you get the point that available reducing days in the field and equally distributing hunters may not change deer harvest?
I do. And I don't think I ever stated that it would . I also won't say that it wouldn't either . It's one of those hypothetical things that you would really need more solid numbers to confirm or deniy. Can you say unequivocally that it would or wouldn't one way or the other ? I can't , but I can say it would reduce pressure . And I think that's been my pretty steadfast point all along
Post by: longwalker on May 14, 2015, 02:04:40 PM
but everyone should have the same opportunity to hunt for them.]
every one would? i dont think any of the seasons should be reduced in fact i think with something like this they should be extended. its not like this is unprecedented in this state. if this is such a backwards idea with no biologic sense behind it, why did they do it with elk....
Post by: Gringo31 on May 15, 2015, 05:43:23 AM
It's interesting that there is a thread talking about the good ol' days. I wasn't around in the 50-60s but I'm told by those that were that there were WAY more people in the field than today. Yes, less people lived in our state but a much higher percentage of the population hunted.
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 05:49:03 AM
Post by: raydog on May 15, 2015, 08:34:21 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 15, 2015, 08:51:06 AM
Post by: haus on May 15, 2015, 08:58:16 AM
Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.
I support limited draw only hunting on the basis of needing to protect a specific local population so long as its in conjunction with other actions, such as targetting habitat improvement as well as identifying the primary cause of mortality, then fixing it. In the mean time, a few hunters get a special opportunity each season, even better if the hunts draw permit funds are allocated for helping the given herd in that area.
Do the mule deer in some areas need help? Yes, those that reside on public land do. This can be addressed without shredding our current state wide general season to little pieces and replacing it with a Colorado-esque system.
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 09:30:26 AM
Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.
It's funny all the guys that have claimed anyone who wants anything like this does so out of selfish motives, since in all cases those making that accusation are absolutely un willing to give up anything when it comes to there deer hunting. I think that's a pretty good example of irony
Post by: Colville on May 15, 2015, 09:34:56 AM
What is the problem, defined. What does a proper change or correction to that problem look like? How will we measure the outcome against the test proposed? How has the proposer proved/shown that the solution being proposed is the least invasive to sportsman, have they even attempted to discuss that? What does that tell you about whether their motivation is Mule Deer herd numbers vs other personal preferences?
No way in hell am I going to throw away opportunity because some people say "mule deer need help". That's a truism like kids need an education. We throw gobs more money at it and the quality metrics of education stay the same so what do we do? Throw more money at it! Nope. Show me the measured herd problem in numbers and then do the work on how and why we should do anything at all, let alone such a drastic thing.
By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Making people shift locations in order to create disbursement is mitigated if you allow the lower head count to hunt for more days! Why do you think the department keeps track of hunter days in the field rather than just hunters.
Post by: haus on May 15, 2015, 09:54:08 AM
I don't believe its done out of selfish motive, I said its self serving. By that I mean in the present state of reasoning and implementation by the WDFW for draw only units the benefits of such are limited to a small percentage of individuals and thus the results. I explained an alternate approach to purpose for draw only. From an economics standpoint the alternative makes sense, as it does from an environmental standpoint.
Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.
It's funny all the guys that have claimed anyone who wants anything like this does so out of selfish motives, since in all cases those making that accusation are absolutely un willing to give up anything when it comes to there deer hunting. I think that's a pretty good example of irony
Post by: gallion_t on May 15, 2015, 11:57:56 AM
The issue in my mind is the number of deer and quality deer is too low for the number of hunters. The OP is asking people to choose one season/specie of deer to hunt. My question is what percentage of deer hunters actually hunts more than one? In my 15ish years of deer hunting I have only hunted a second species one day. I feel if you were to really look at the numbers the vast majority of hunters only hunt one season now. I dont feel it would really disperse the hunting any better than it currently does. The only thing it would do is for the people that are trying to draw the primo tag for an area/species they dont currently hunt it might effect how they apply for special permits.
I feel the better solution is to work to increase the carrying capacity of the different regions for each species of deer. This would need to be done by better managing predators and the habit the deer live in.
Now people feel the bigger issue that there are too many people for the amount of land there is to hunt then that issue can only be handled by limiting hunting opportunities which I am against.
Post by: PA BEN on May 15, 2015, 02:31:40 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:01:37 PM
Seems like there is a lot of trophy hunters that like to spend money on hunts. What about the guy who hunts for the meat? What about the local hunters who hunt out their back door?
I imagine hunting season would be business as useal for those guys?? I e never advocated for taking away seasons or opertunity. Everyone would have the same opertunity at all the seasons. You'd just have to pick one. No advantage or disadvantage to any one group, freedom of choice and equal opertunity for all the tags would not change. I know the proper reaction to this is a linch mob ready to burn the heretic at the stake but really some of these knee jerk reactions are just laughable
Post by: dscubame on May 15, 2015, 04:09:32 PM
Reality is though, its a self serving rabbit hole in most cases, not all.
It's funny all the guys that have claimed anyone who wants anything like this does so out of selfish motives, since in all cases those making that accusation are absolutely un willing to give up anything when it comes to there deer hunting. I think that's a pretty good example of irony
Sooo off base. Reducing hunting opportunity and reducing time in the field. Just another example of a few imposing their own will on others. Stop the oppression for heavens sake. Most sportsman don't give a rip about a big trophy, nice for sure but way down on the priority list of whats important. Top of list would be the opportunity to get out and hunt as much as possible. Time afield like my original "knee jerk reaction" comment is important. Why reduce opportunity and the availability of getting out.
Post by: dscubame on May 15, 2015, 04:14:40 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:17:37 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:19:59 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:20:50 PM
Post by: dscubame on May 15, 2015, 04:24:00 PM
How about the guy that can only get out for 3-4 days a year and doesn't make enough for a ton of gas money or have the time of for poles of scouting trips. The. Hoes out for late buck and it's the paverbeable pumpkin patch? Wouldn't it be nicer if the pressure was dispersed a little giving him a better quality meat hunt? Or screw that guy right?
No problem with the guy in your scenario he can hunt just fine, and thank goodness with the way it is now he would have plenty of opportunity not just limited opportunity as the proposal in this thread suggests. There is simply great disagreement which is healthy to discuss and not very compelling arguments to change it up as proposed. IMO
Post by: dscubame on May 15, 2015, 04:26:39 PM
Keep up the condenseding tone though and references to my screen name, I find it entertaining
Your just sensitive and have not reacted well with those on this thread that wish not to agree with your thoughts.
I will step aside and not add fuel to the fire, just expressed my opinions as have you. I wish you the best.
Post by: dscubame on May 15, 2015, 04:28:13 PM
Keep up the condenseding tone though and references to my screen name, I find it entertaining
I thought it was crafty, and harmless fun. That's what this forum is about. :hello:
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:32:04 PM
Keep up the condenseding tone though and references to my screen name, I find it entertaining
Your just sensitive and have not reacted well with those on this thread that wish not to agree with your thoughts.
I will step aside and not add fuel to the fire, just expressed my opinions as have you. I wish you the best.
Huh, I didn't think I had been reacting poorly . I'm am very sensitive little flower though. I guess I just care about you guys and the quality of your hunting experiance too much :cryriver:
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 04:38:02 PM
How about the guy that can only get out for 3-4 days a year and doesn't make enough for a ton of gas money or have the time of for poles of scouting trips. The. Hoes out for late buck and it's the paverbeable pumpkin patch? Wouldn't it be nicer if the pressure was dispersed a little giving him a better quality meat hunt? Or screw that guy right?
No problem with the guy in your scenario he can hunt just fine, and thank goodness with the way it is now he would have plenty of opportunity not just limited opportunity as the proposal in this thread suggests. There is simply great disagreement which is healthy to discuss and not very compelling arguments to change it up as proposed. IMO
Well I my scenerio he would have general and late buck to hunt ( both OTC o. The west side )from and probably never even consider going east to hunt. His west side hunt would just be better with the lower numbers since guys had to pick one category and stick with it
Post by: elk247 on May 15, 2015, 04:40:38 PM
Why do hunters want to impose more restrictions on our sport? Once they take opportunity away they don't give them back. If you want to help the deer population kill more predators. :twocents:
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 08:03:41 PM
Post by: raydog on May 15, 2015, 08:15:12 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 08:22:52 PM
Not to sound like an Elitist though
never said i was or wasn't. those are your words. your entitled to them
Post by: deerlick on May 15, 2015, 09:25:45 PM
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 09:42:23 PM
Post by: muleyguy on May 15, 2015, 10:04:23 PM
Quote
What is the problem, defined. What does a proper change or correction to that problem look like? How will we measure the outcome against the test proposed? How has the proposer proved/shown that the solution being proposed is the least invasive to sportsman, have they even attempted to discuss that? What does that tell you about whether their motivation is Mule Deer herd numbers vs other personal preferences?
No way in hell am I going to throw away opportunity because some people say "mule deer need help". That's a truism like kids need an education. We throw gobs more money at it and the quality metrics of education stay the same so what do we do? Throw more money at it! Nope. Show me the measured herd problem in numbers and then do the work on how and why we should do anything at all, let alone such a drastic thing.
By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Making people shift locations in order to create disbursement is mitigated if you allow the lower head count to hunt for more days! Why do you think the department keeps track of hunter days in the field rather than just hunters.
here is the problem defined...........WA state has the highest population base against the smallest land base of any Western state; in addition we have 50% of the State that has very high population density, which is steadily moving East along the Cascade front for their ski slopes, winter homes, 2nd homes, etc.
There's more people that live in a 75 mile radius of you, then the entire state of Montana or Wyoming..........(if your avatar is right and you live in Everett)
the idea that this State, over the long run, does NOT have to limit opportunity is ludicrous; what we have in this state is a strong lobby of people like yourself that do not want to limit opportunity, and, a WDFW that also does not want to limit opportunity because of financial considerations, working in concert with each other.
The result??? gimmicks......like statewide APR's, and drastically shortened seasons; and suggestions like this........nothing against he original poster, but, all this is is another gimmick and just pushes hunters around without addressing the larger problem......your just going to increase hunter pressure in some areas, reduce it in others; great for the few units you reduce it in....disaster for the units you increase it in......
We've had 20 plus years of mule deer 3pt or better rules; along the way, we have steadily seen shorter and shorter seasons; so, now, we are down to a 9 day mid October season; and, what have we gotten for this??? poor age structure, poor buck to doe ratio, stupid crowded, short seasons in mid october when its 80 degrees.
I don't know, if you think that is a great opportunity, then, I guess we have two different opinions of what opportunity means.
What the system does favor though is the select few people that have thousands of countless hours to devote to scouting, spending every minute in the field etc. Yup, for you guys, you got the advantage because you do not have to submit to a draw system.
Now, don't go out on your soapbox and tell me that I am just a crybaby and need to spend more time in the field to truly find that secret "nirvana" thats out there in WA.........I have hunted every corner of this State and 7 other States in the West; have spend the countless hours in the field, and been to every hot public area in the West, most of the time before the crowds have gotten there. But, what I can tell you, is that a "quality" experience in the field entails much more then shooting a "big" buck.........
you want definition of a "quality" hunt????? a quality hunt is when I can take my 15 yr old daughter who only has a few days here and there to spare in a busy schedule, and go hunt an area with the expectation that:
A. I won't run into 5000 orange vests....
B. We have a reasonable chance of shooting a buck
C. We don't have to travel more then 1 hr from home to do it
D. We have more then just homecoming saturday to do it........
Outside of the 1 hr from home, I can achieve that in 4 states that border WA..........
The best argument I like is the poaching and predator argument........lets shoot all the bucks before the predators or poachers get them.......hmmm......yeah thats a good strategy.........
So, we can all go along here, debating the intracies of APR's, "pick your area", "pick your weapon", whitetail, blacktail, mule deer, etc.......and nothing will change in this state........
How about we focus the argument on whats best biologically for the herd???? what that is fewer bucks killed.......will it solve all the problems???
Absolutely not.......but, for the few deer we do have, it will make for a strong buck component of the population, with proper age structure, and, an "experience" that is in the longer run better for everybody.
This idea that hunting will "die" if we go to a system that limits hunters is ludicrous.......what will save hunting in this State is a positive experience with it.........and, right now, its not a very positive experience........unless your the guy who spends 180 days in the field........and, I can tell you, hunting will die if that is the only way a positive experience happens in the future.
simple solution.......limit it to being able to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs..........you do that, reduce hunting pressure, and hunter numbers by 1/3rd, you can increase the length of the season, spread the hunter pressure out, increase the buck component, do away with stupid APR's, and, have a great experience 2 out of every 3 yrs.........
is that really too much to ask????
Post by: longwalker on May 15, 2015, 10:11:25 PM
Great post muleyguy. I like your idea even better than mine. That's how I know it will never happen
Post by: bobcat on May 15, 2015, 10:16:07 PM
The hunting 2 out of 3 years idea could be accomplished by draw only deer hunting. A system similar to Oregon would be great here. In Oregon you can still choose to hunt ever year if you want. You just may have to hunt with a bow, or hunt blacktails.
Post by: 257 Wby Mag on May 15, 2015, 10:40:11 PM
Why would anyone be willing to try anything without a thesis?QuoteWhat is the problem, defined. What does a proper change or correction to that problem look like? How will we measure the outcome against the test proposed? How has the proposer proved/shown that the solution being proposed is the least invasive to sportsman, have they even attempted to discuss that? What does that tell you about whether their motivation is Mule Deer herd numbers vs other personal preferences?
No way in hell am I going to throw away opportunity because some people say "mule deer need help". That's a truism like kids need an education. We throw gobs more money at it and the quality metrics of education stay the same so what do we do? Throw more money at it! Nope. Show me the measured herd problem in numbers and then do the work on how and why we should do anything at all, let alone such a drastic thing.
By the way, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Making people shift locations in order to create disbursement is mitigated if you allow the lower head count to hunt for more days! Why do you think the department keeps track of hunter days in the field rather than just hunters.
here is the problem defined...........WA state has the highest population base against the smallest land base of any Western state; in addition we have 50% of the State that has very high population density, which is steadily moving East along the Cascade front for their ski slopes, winter homes, 2nd homes, etc.
There's more people that live in a 75 mile radius of you, then the entire state of Montana or Wyoming..........(if your avatar is right and you live in Everett)
the idea that this State, over the long run, does NOT have to limit opportunity is ludicrous; what we have in this state is a strong lobby of people like yourself that do not want to limit opportunity, and, a WDFW that also does not want to limit opportunity because of financial considerations, working in concert with each other.
The result??? gimmicks......like statewide APR's, and drastically shortened seasons; and suggestions like this........nothing against he original poster, but, all this is is another gimmick and just pushes hunters around without addressing the larger problem......your just going to increase hunter pressure in some areas, reduce it in others; great for the few units you reduce it in....disaster for the units you increase it in......
We've had 20 plus years of mule deer 3pt or better rules; along the way, we have steadily seen shorter and shorter seasons; so, now, we are down to a 9 day mid October season; and, what have we gotten for this??? poor age structure, poor buck to doe ratio, stupid crowded, short seasons in mid october when its 80 degrees.
I don't know, if you think that is a great opportunity, then, I guess we have two different opinions of what opportunity means.
What the system does favor though is the select few people that have thousands of countless hours to devote to scouting, spending every minute in the field etc. Yup, for you guys, you got the advantage because you do not have to submit to a draw system.
Now, don't go out on your soapbox and tell me that I am just a crybaby and need to spend more time in the field to truly find that secret "nirvana" thats out there in WA.........I have hunted every corner of this State and 7 other States in the West; have spend the countless hours in the field, and been to every hot public area in the West, most of the time before the crowds have gotten there. But, what I can tell you, is that a "quality" experience in the field entails much more then shooting a "big" buck.........
you want definition of a "quality" hunt????? a quality hunt is when I can take my 15 yr old daughter who only has a few days here and there to spare in a busy schedule, and go hunt an area with the expectation that:
A. I won't run into 5000 orange vests....
B. We have a reasonable chance of shooting a buck
C. We don't have to travel more then 1 hr from home to do it
D. We have more then just homecoming saturday to do it........
Outside of the 1 hr from home, I can achieve that in 4 states that border WA..........
The best argument I like is the poaching and predator argument........lets shoot all the bucks before the predators or poachers get them.......hmmm......yeah thats a good strategy.........
So, we can all go along here, debating the intracies of APR's, "pick your area", "pick your weapon", whitetail, blacktail, mule deer, etc.......and nothing will change in this state........
How about we focus the argument on whats best biologically for the herd???? what that is fewer bucks killed.......will it solve all the problems???
Absolutely not.......but, for the few deer we do have, it will make for a strong buck component of the population, with proper age structure, and, an "experience" that is in the longer run better for everybody.
This idea that hunting will "die" if we go to a system that limits hunters is ludicrous.......what will save hunting in this State is a positive experience with it.........and, right now, its not a very positive experience........unless your the guy who spends 180 days in the field........and, I can tell you, hunting will die if that is the only way a positive experience happens in the future.
simple solution.......limit it to being able to hunt 2 out of 3 yrs..........you do that, reduce hunting pressure, and hunter numbers by 1/3rd, you can increase the length of the season, spread the hunter pressure out, increase the buck component, do away with stupid APR's, and, have a great experience 2 out of every 3 yrs.........
is that really too much to ask????
Bout the best response I've read in years on hunt wa... it can't continue like it is, I'd like to see a statewide draw as well...
Post by: PA BEN on May 16, 2015, 10:07:15 AM
Seems like there is a lot of trophy hunters that like to spend money on hunts. What about the guy who hunts for the meat? What about the local hunters who hunt out their back door?The reason I said this is because there are a lot of posts saying to go to permit only. I for one would be one pissed off resident/landowner of 121 if it went permit only. There are a lot of hunters in this State who want to impose their idea of hunting on the ones who live in their hunting area. I've seen a lot of land leased to guides and hunting groups that take opportunity away from locals who can't afford those type of hunts.
Post by: Colville on May 16, 2015, 12:00:04 PM
Hunters Antlerless Antlered
2014 120,488 2006 6225
2013 123,928 1071 5608
2012 120,082 633 5391
2011 125,537 532 4821
2010 131,133 548 4761
2009 135,859 461 5605
2008 144,514 544 4135
2007 139,241
2006 135,195
2005 135,653
The kill counts take more time to compile before 08 so I skipped it but I certainly can go do it.
Your contention is that hunting is disimproving and getting more crowded. The trends are clear as day. There are fewer and fewer hunters on a downtrending line. Those hunters are killing MORE mule deer than in the past. I see that before the fires of 14 the doe alocation was increasing. That's not a sign of too few deer and the antlered kill supports that for those years too. I expect that 2015 and 20116 will now see reductions because the big doe kill last year was driven by the fire decision.
Overall, you are simply wrong. Hunter's are diminishing no matter what you say about population. Success is improving. Antlerless availablility is UP indicating they feel the herd is at carrying capacity. To me this points out that there's no biological imperative to changing the system. The demands to change the system are about aesthetics and perception of quality. It's not about deer management. I bet if we had the age data of hunters we'd see that the pool is getting older all the time and recuriting fewer new young hunters. Our trend without doing anything at all is toward more space with fewer hunters getting more deer per hunter.
Post by: TommyH on May 16, 2015, 03:16:45 PM
Post by: elk247 on May 16, 2015, 05:43:33 PM
:beatdeadhorse: that won't help because these guys can only have a successful hunt if they harvest "a good buck" you know... One that makes the record book. It has to be fair chase to be in the book. These guys don't care if they have to wait a year or two or more to hunt in this state either because they will have points in other states and will get drawn somewhere or just go buy a meat tag out of state.This is silly. This is a discussion of completely demolishing the current system. Then offering a couple of different "solutions" that will be the replacement. It completely skips the first step in problem solving.
What's the problem? DEFINE the problem please. Do people even agree that there is a problem? Is the problem in question a biological one or an aesthetic and experience one? I'm not interested in any change that reduces opportunity where there's not a hard and fast biological problem being solved. "Quality" of animal is not such a problem. It's totally valid to want to manage herds for quality but you don't get to turn that personal management preference into a scientific herd maintenance necessity. They can be managed in both directions successfully and I've seen no specific biologist argument that our opportunity system as currently managed is unsustainable beyond specific herd events: (winters, fire last year) and those events are transient needing transient changes not permanent ones.
The problem as I see it is that there's a faction of hunters that is a distinct minority that wants when they hunt to see fewer hunters and see better age class deer more frequently. That group would support all kinds of reduction of opportunity because that's their POV. Better to not hunt one year or where I want to in exchange for a better buck or better experience every 2 years. The vast majority wants to hunt open seasons with the flexibility to chose where they wish, change their mind because of injury, life changes, fires or to be able to always hunt the same piece of dirt they've hunted for a lifetime. It's an intractable argument. Might as well debate abortion.
I'm going to agree with colville pretty much entirely. Many people want a draw only for the elitist atmosphere but I would prefer a more open approach and get rid of all of these special draws,bogus point systems and exclusive 'good ol boys' hunts. What about the folks who have limited hunting days available and the days they are free there is something preventing them taking advantage of those days? I you want to hunt managed herds of deer go pay for private ranch/farm access where they feed the deer and grow trophies every year. Pretty soon trophies won't be trophies, they are supposed to be few and far between and difficult to get, but everyone should have the same opportunity to hunt for them.
I think the point that this suggestion would do much more harm then good for the mule deer was right on the money. This is after all, all about mule deer. If there is a problem with the deer population the state needs to address that gmu specifically via the regulations on the unit. This isn't a state wide issue. If you guys don't specifically like the way the mule deer herd is managed (you would have plenty of company) then address that issue straight forward.
Post by: longwalker on May 16, 2015, 06:41:36 PM
Post by: Miles on May 16, 2015, 06:52:27 PM
Pretty sure that post was directed towards muleyguy. Try to keep up, if not just wait in the car and dont play with the buttons
Your sure are a condescending little chit. Stop with the complaining and learn to hunt and you will find the seasons work fine. You slammed other hunters, but from what you have shown you are the one that has no business in the woods little fellow.
Don't worry about Longwinded, he'll be banned soon enough...
Post by: longwalker on May 16, 2015, 06:54:02 PM
Post by: Miles on May 16, 2015, 07:00:24 PM
Pretty sure that post was directed towards muleyguy. Try to keep up, if not just wait in the car and dont play with the buttons
Your sure are a condescending little chit. Stop with the complaining and learn to hunt and you will find the seasons work fine. You slammed other hunters, but from what you have shown you are the one that has no business in the woods little fellow.
Don't worry about Longwinded, he'll be banned soon enough...
Read through this thread and look at how many people the little guy has insulted. And I'm the one that should be banned :dunno:
That's why I said don't worry about him... He'll get his day in the timeout chair.
Post by: kentrek on May 16, 2015, 07:15:08 PM
Not to sound like an Elitist though
He is very much playing the part. Funny thing is I sure have seen him post any big bucks on here. Anybody else recall seeing this big time hunter post any quality bucks?
There's alot of people that don't post to the brag board
No point in getting distracted with how the op conducts himself...it's still a very relevant conversation from both points of view
Post by: tgomez on May 16, 2015, 07:25:19 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 16, 2015, 07:42:16 PM
Post by: grundy53 on May 16, 2015, 07:54:42 PM
Post by: Miles on May 16, 2015, 07:57:37 PM
This topic actually has nothing to do with big antlers.:yeah: This topic is about longwinded's desire to reduce hunting competition while he is out on his short walks every October.
Post by: turkeyfeather on May 16, 2015, 08:08:52 PM
Oh, you saw through all that BS too. :chuckle:This topic actually has nothing to do with big antlers.:yeah: This topic is about longwinded's desire to reduce hunting competition while he is out on his short walks every October.
Post by: grundy53 on May 16, 2015, 08:12:04 PM