Post by: jackelope on February 21, 2016, 06:31:29 PM
Post by: Griiz on February 21, 2016, 06:38:01 PM
Post by: X-Force on February 21, 2016, 06:38:33 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on February 21, 2016, 06:38:45 PM
Post by: 3nails on February 21, 2016, 06:40:56 PM
Post by: huntnphool on February 21, 2016, 06:42:35 PM
Ya but the only way to make it work is to make half the hunters sit on the bench every other year. We simply have to many hunters per animal in this state.
I proposed a system like this a few years ago, problem is there are too many in the "screw that, I want my tag every year, I don't care about anything else" crowd.
Post by: grundy53 on February 21, 2016, 06:46:09 PM
As long as those who put in for the permit were not allowed to hunt blacktails if they weren't drawn I'd support it.This for sure.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: 3nails on February 21, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 21, 2016, 06:47:21 PM
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 21, 2016, 06:48:56 PM
You know the more I think about it, what about a system where you have to declare your species? You could only hunt mule deer with a mule deer tag etc. This would decrease pressure on all three sub species.I think that would be great. I think it would definitely ease the pressure off the Blacktails...
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: trophyhunt on February 21, 2016, 06:50:28 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on February 21, 2016, 06:51:32 PM
Post by: X-Force on February 21, 2016, 06:56:25 PM
Ya but the only way to make it work is to make half the hunters sit on the bench every other year. We simply have to many hunters per animal in this state.
I proposed a system like this a few years ago, problem is there are too many in the "screw that, I want my tag every year, I don't care about anything else" crowd.
Sounds like the same type of people in support of our current permit system.
Post by: huntnphool on February 21, 2016, 06:57:56 PM
Ya but the only way to make it work is to make half the hunters sit on the bench every other year. We simply have to many hunters per animal in this state.
I proposed a system like this a few years ago, problem is there are too many in the "screw that, I want my tag every year, I don't care about anything else" crowd.
Sounds like the same type of people in support of our current permit system.
Here http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,86231.msg1080089.html#msg1080089 is the link to our discussion a few years ago.
Post by: skidynastar33 on February 21, 2016, 06:58:38 PM
Post by: Branden on February 21, 2016, 07:03:58 PM
Washington can be as good or better then Colorado I believe since there are the three deer species. Some guys will want to hunt close to home, some guys will want to travel and kill a mule deer or whitetail. Just limiting it to species specific would be a huge start compared to what is in place right now.
Regards, Branden
Post by: huntnphool on February 21, 2016, 07:07:19 PM
I feel if you made it draw for all deer species you could still hunt every year. Do it so if you applied for what is the normal general season then you get a tag for sure. If you apply for what is now a permit hunt then you might not get a tag. That way people that want to hunt can hunt, and people that want a better chance at a mature buck can hunt more. Less competition for draw tags and less crowding during general season.
It's already like that for a lot of guys, self imposed anyway. For a lot, if they don't draw a permit, they don't hunt here, they go out of state.
Post by: Bango skank on February 21, 2016, 07:07:36 PM
as a means to reduce overcrowded hunting areas and improve the quality of the hunt. Maybe permits and a couple seasons to spread hunters out.
There are lots of good mule deer areas that recieve very little pressure. If somebody is hunting a crowded area and doesnt like it, he should make an effort to find a better spot, rather than expect lots of people to go without tags
Post by: jrebel on February 21, 2016, 07:13:04 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 21, 2016, 07:15:36 PM
Horrible idea!
Why??!
Post by: jackelope on February 21, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
as a means to reduce overcrowded hunting areas and improve the quality of the hunt. Maybe permits and a couple seasons to spread hunters out.
There are lots of good mule deer areas that recieve very little pressure. If somebody is hunting a crowded area and doesnt like it, he should make an effort to find a better spot, rather than expect lots of people to go without tags
Not necessarily saying anyone go without tags. Maybe everyone gets tags split up throughout 3 shorter seasons. Just throwing it out there. It's the off season. I know there's going to be folks who think it's a great idea and folks who think it's a horrible idea.
Personally I didn't see another soul where I was last year. 2 different areas of the state.
Post by: jackelope on February 21, 2016, 07:19:09 PM
as a means to reduce overcrowded hunting areas and improve the quality of the hunt. Maybe permits and a couple seasons to spread hunters out.
There are lots of good mule deer areas that recieve very little pressure. If somebody is hunting a crowded area and doesnt like it, he should make an effort to find a better spot, rather than expect lots of people to go without tags
Depends what's your idea of good mule deer areas. Lots of deer? I could kill legal mule deer every year.
Post by: Bango skank on February 21, 2016, 07:20:53 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 21, 2016, 07:24:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 21, 2016, 07:34:37 PM
I have to believe mule deer are going to receive more and more hunting pressure every year as timber company land here on the west side of the state continues to be shut down to the general public. Myself and many others will begin to go east to where the majority of our public land is located.
So the state will eventually need to control the number of hunters. As it is now the state has absolutely no control over how many people hunt mule deer, or in which unit they hunt. It would be nice if they'd do something about it before it becomes a major crisis.
Post by: Bango skank on February 21, 2016, 07:42:56 PM
as a means to reduce overcrowded hunting areas and improve the quality of the hunt. Maybe permits and a couple seasons to spread hunters out.
There are lots of good mule deer areas that recieve very little pressure. If somebody is hunting a crowded area and doesnt like it, he should make an effort to find a better spot, rather than expect lots of people to go without tags
Depends what's your idea of good mule deer areas. Lots of deer? I could kill legal mule deer every year.
Low hunter density, good opportunity at success, and reasonable opportunity at taking a good mature buck, if youre willing to pass on the little guys
Post by: 3nails on February 21, 2016, 07:44:03 PM
Post by: PolarBear on February 21, 2016, 07:45:16 PM
Post by: Kazekurt on February 21, 2016, 07:51:23 PM
Post by: jrebel on February 21, 2016, 07:58:27 PM
Several of the answers posted sum up my thoughts. First and foremost hunting is an experience and I just don't see the advantage of sitting out seasons. When permits get involved, many traditions and group hunts suffer because not everyone draws and to me that and substansnce are the root of hunting. Secondly, I'm not sure the system is broken. I hunt almost entirely OTC on public land and have filled my tag 22 out of 24 years and I usually only shoot 4pt or better. We already have like 5 seasons they just involve different weapons and their are numerous permit opportunities for those who want that plus multi tags. If you scout and are flexible on hunt days you can almost always find areas to hunt with limited crowding; especially if you're willing to get off the beaten path.
:yeah:
Well said!!
Post by: vandeman17 on February 21, 2016, 07:59:48 PM
Post by: Jimmy33 on February 21, 2016, 08:11:19 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Bango skank on February 21, 2016, 08:18:43 PM
If a new system helped the long term prospects of hunting in this state not only for myself but for the next generations, I am all for it.
We can improve the hunting in our state by adding opportunity, not limiting it. Its called effective predator management.
Post by: boneaddict on February 21, 2016, 08:28:03 PM
Post by: kirkl on February 21, 2016, 08:36:12 PM
Post by: BackCountryJunki on February 21, 2016, 08:51:31 PM
Several of the answers posted sum up my thoughts. First and foremost hunting is an experience and I just don't see the advantage of sitting out seasons. When permits get involved, many traditions and group hunts suffer because not everyone draws and to me that and substansnce are the root of hunting. Secondly, I'm not sure the system is broken. I hunt almost entirely OTC on public land and have filled my tag 22 out of 24 years and I usually only shoot 4pt or better. We already have like 5 seasons they just involve different weapons and their are numerous permit opportunities for those who want that plus multi tags. If you scout and are flexible on hunt days you can almost always find areas to hunt with limited crowding; especially if you're willing to get off the beaten path.
Couldn't have put it better.
No need for more regulation. We have ample critters to chase. Just so happens they get smarter every year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 21, 2016, 09:12:28 PM
Post by: lewy on February 21, 2016, 09:14:45 PM
Post by: crabcreekhunter on February 21, 2016, 09:24:07 PM
Post by: fish vacuum on February 21, 2016, 09:25:09 PM
Having to choose an east or west tag: yes
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Post by: ghosthunter on February 21, 2016, 09:30:38 PM
Several of the answers posted sum up my thoughts. First and foremost hunting is an experience and I just don't see the advantage of sitting out seasons. When permits get involved, many traditions and group hunts suffer because not everyone draws and to me that and substansnce are the root of hunting. Secondly, I'm not sure the system is broken. I hunt almost entirely OTC on public land and have filled my tag 22 out of 24 years and I usually only shoot 4pt or better. We already have like 5 seasons they just involve different weapons and their are numerous permit opportunities for those who want that plus multi tags. If you scout and are flexible on hunt days you can almost always find areas to hunt with limited crowding; especially if you're willing to get off the beaten path.
Couldn't have put it better.
No need for more regulation. We have ample critters to chase. Just so happens they get smarter every year.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree
I honestly think it would adversely effect hunting in this state. We need to retain hunter numbers. There are thousands of hunters that go to the same camp group every year. A permit draw would kill the established camps.
I put a lot of time into a good camp each year for elk and deer. A four day hunt wouldn't be worth the effort.
The state is already having trouble getting all the seasons in now and making the groups happy. Adding three more? I doubt it.
Also family hunting is a huge draw. That would be gone.
I hunted elk in the Nile black powder , never saw another hunter in the woods.
I hunted a popular mule deer area. Saw maybe three or four other hunters in the woods and still killed a four point. I could care less about trophies. I would shoot a spike if I could.
We have a lot of hunters but ,I bet less than half are serious hunters. They go a weekend or two that's it.
I just don't see the pressure everyone complains about.
Not for a permit only system.
Post by: Ingwe on February 21, 2016, 10:16:42 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on February 22, 2016, 07:13:42 AM
If a new system helped the long term prospects of hunting in this state not only for myself but for the next generations, I am all for it.
We can improve the hunting in our state by adding opportunity, not limiting it. Its called effective predator management.
I am fine with that too. Like I said, anything that helps the long term health of the mule deer herds I am all for. Since bringing back more predator hunting options doesn't seem to be on the horizon, exploring other options isn't a bad idea.
Post by: WildlifeAssassin on February 22, 2016, 08:33:06 AM
Post by: WAPatriot on February 22, 2016, 08:58:42 AM
Post by: kellama2001 on February 22, 2016, 09:10:57 AM
Several of the answers posted sum up my thoughts. First and foremost hunting is an experience and I just don't see the advantage of sitting out seasons. When permits get involved, many traditions and group hunts suffer because not everyone draws and to me that and substansnce are the root of hunting. Secondly, I'm not sure the system is broken. I hunt almost entirely OTC on public land and have filled my tag 22 out of 24 years and I usually only shoot 4pt or better. We already have like 5 seasons they just involve different weapons and their are numerous permit opportunities for those who want that plus multi tags. If you scout and are flexible on hunt days you can almost always find areas to hunt with limited crowding; especially if you're willing to get off the beaten path.
:yeah:
Well said!!
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: Agree 100%
Post by: Rainier10 on February 22, 2016, 09:16:29 AM
I agree with so many of them that I can't quote them all but basically I agree with the majority on this thread that there is no need at this time to go to permit only.
Post by: trophyhunt on February 22, 2016, 09:29:26 AM
Several of the answers posted sum up my thoughts. First and foremost hunting is an experience and I just don't see the advantage of sitting out seasons. When permits get involved, many traditions and group hunts suffer because not everyone draws and to me that and substansnce are the root of hunting. Secondly, I'm not sure the system is broken. I hunt almost entirely OTC on public land and have filled my tag 22 out of 24 years and I usually only shoot 4pt or better. We already have like 5 seasons they just involve different weapons and their are numerous permit opportunities for those who want that plus multi tags. If you scout and are flexible on hunt days you can almost always find areas to hunt with limited crowding; especially if you're willing to get off the beaten path.also agree, well said.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 09:34:10 AM
IF we focus on putting the right people driving the bus, many of these details will be sorted out on their own. Predators, enforcement of laws, balance between enforcement and admin (as far as $$$ drain) are a few examples. :twocents:
Post by: baldopepper on February 22, 2016, 09:50:24 AM
Post by: Bill W on February 22, 2016, 09:52:33 AM
We used to hunt an area where sometimes lots of hunters showed up. Some even camped in the prime areas. What we'd do is get up earlier than them on opening morning, sneak out to the far edge of the hunting area and then let the hunters get up when hunters are supposed to get up and drive the deer to us.
I call this "thinking outside the box".
All a person has to do is hunt 10% harder than the rest to do good. Look at maps and try to figure out where the deer will be driven to and hunt those areas.
Post by: jkthomps on February 22, 2016, 10:04:54 AM
Post by: jstone on February 22, 2016, 10:10:01 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 10:29:40 AM
I never thought about the point where groups and big camps of guys would get split up. I agree, that's no good.
I don't have a problem getting away from crowds. Like I said earlier, I didn't see another soul out in the woods last year while I was hunting. I like to hike, I try and backpack in somewhere for at least a few days every year.
I'm not asking these things for my benefit. I'm more thinking along the lines of improving hunting experiences for everyone in this state. If nothing else, I was trying to get some thoughts rolling. I agree that if there is an overcrowding issue, then go somewhere else...but what happens when that "somewhere else" gets overcrowded??
If nothing else, I think at least some changes need to happen in Washington if we're going to have any sort of quality hunting in the future. The free for all it is now is not going to do anything to maintain deer herds for my kids and their kids, and that's what we should be working towards. Just my thoughts. If you guys are ok with hunting for a week In a sea of orange and 1 out of 4 of you in your camp kill a young 3 point, then I'll back down and not say another word, but I don't want to hear you complaining if or when it comes to that.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 10:43:16 AM
You fools keep thinking this is about the deer. :nono:
This IS about the money.
Just let multi season tags sink into your heads. It does the opposite of what you are all talking about. Adds people, adds pressure, adds harvest. :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 10:47:38 AM
It's pretty clear to me you are all wrong :chuckle:
You fools keep thinking this is about the deer. :nono:
This IS about the money.
Just let multi season tags sink into your heads. It does the opposite of what you are all talking about. Adds people, adds pressure, adds harvest. :twocents:
Wow. Fools? Didn't mean to start a name calling thread.
I agree re: the multi season permits. Maybe we should push to get rid of them.
I'm just trying to figure out where the hunters of Washington state stand.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 10:54:28 AM
I too am a fool. I keep thinking WDFW has the same interests that I do in managing our fish and game. I find myself hopeful only to then be disappointed......over and over and over again. Yep, a fool indeed.
But, back on track of this topic, why not remove mule deer from multi-season permit holders? :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 10:59:14 AM
I was totally just playing...
I too am a fool. I keep thinking WDFW has the same interests that I do in managing our fish and game. I find myself hopeful only to then be disappointed......over and over and over again. Yep, a fool indeed.
But, back on track of this topic, why not remove mule deer from multi-season permit holders? :dunno:
Ok. I think we're on the same page then.
Post by: rtspring on February 22, 2016, 11:04:00 AM
I invested to go every year!
Here is a problem that never gets addressed! Since when do you have to go out and shoot a 200" inch muley? You dont but everyone seems to want to change rules just so they can go shoot bigger and bigger and bigger deer! Its getting to the point where I just dont care to hear a score anymore! If we keep going the way were headed, hunting will only be a rich mans game.
What a disgrace. No way will I ever agree to a draw only hunting.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 11:15:08 AM
About 1/3 of all the deer harvested in Washington state every year come from the NE corner.
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 11:23:24 AM
Be careful what you wish for! I know for me I didnt invest 20k dollars to MAYBE draw a tag and go hunting!!!I personally don't have to kill a 200" mule deer. Ever. I'd love to, but it's not something I look for specifically in a quality experience. I'm looking for the place, the scenery, the adventure, the time with friends and the hope to harvest a mature buck. All the while I don't want to be surrounded by a sea of orange.
I invested to go every year!
Here is a problem that never gets addressed! Since when do you have to go out and shoot a 200" inch muley? You dont but everyone seems to want to change rules just so they can go shoot bigger and bigger and bigger deer! Its getting to the point where I just dont care to hear a score anymore! If we keep going the way were headed, hunting will only be a rich mans game.
What a disgrace. No way will I ever agree to a draw only hunting.
I don't have $20k invested, never will and i don't personally think anyone needs to spend that much money on hunting.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 11:27:06 AM
It's pretty clear to me you are all wrong :chuckle:Im glad you pointed this out. There are many good management decisions that could be made that really dont cost much for the wdfw that they dont make. The state could greatly encourge the hunting of predators but instead prefer to protect them. One such example is doing away with the deer bear cougar combo. They said it was to simplify the system. I call bs the quota system for cougars with no hounds is bs and a year round season could be applied, there should be a lot more spring bear tags. They tell us mgt requires $ but then they just use it to protect predators and reduce opportunity
You fools keep thinking this is about the deer. :nono:
This IS about the money.
Just let multi season tags sink into your heads. It does the opposite of what you are all talking about. Adds people, adds pressure, adds harvest. :twocents:
First of all I think last year more trophy mulies hit the dirt than I have seen ever. Limit opportunity this sounds anti hunting. Let's focus on non anti hunting proposals that improve hunting like predator management or tribal management.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Sumpnneedskillin on February 22, 2016, 12:48:27 PM
The only other state I've hunted is CA when I was stationed down there so my experience is limited. I've hunted more there than here due to being stationed there for quite a while and getting a late start hunting. I prefer CA seasons over WA seasons and they do big game hunting by permit. I saw less people in the woods (granted the good areas were crowded) and there was less pressure to harvest. If I saw something the first day I could pass on it because I knew I still had 3 months to hunt.
I loved it because I could typically get two deer and hunt from Labor Day to New Years Day if I drew Modern and bought Archery OTC. Archery season was Labor Day for 44-ish days then it was modern for about 30-ish days (end of Oct to end of Nov) and then late archery season from Mid November to New Years Day.
They set a quota per zone (GMU) for each season (archery, modern, ML, special permits). When I was there, for San Diego (A22/D16/M6/G13) it was about 1000 archery permits/3000 modern/80 ML/300 anterless. You submitted your application with 3 choices. After the draw the left over tags were OTC.
After I left they started hauling in some huge bucks that had good food areas after the wildfires so A22 went to a premium zone and you couldn't get it as a second choice or OTC.
Post by: Bango skank on February 22, 2016, 01:10:20 PM
Looks like I'm in the minority here.
The only other state I've hunted is CA when I was stationed down there so my experience is limited. I've hunted more there than here due to being stationed there for quite a while and getting a late start hunting. I prefer CA seasons over WA seasons and they do big game hunting by permit. I saw less people in the woods (granted the good areas were crowded) and there was less pressure to harvest. If I saw something the first day I could pass on it because I knew I still had 3 months to hunt.
I loved it because I could typically get two deer and hunt from Labor Day to New Years Day if I drew Modern and bought Archery OTC. Archery season was Labor Day for 44-ish days then it was modern for about 30-ish days (end of Oct to end of Nov) and then late archery season from Mid November to New Years Day.
They set a quota per zone (GMU) for each season (archery, modern, ML, special permits). When I was there, for San Diego (A22/D16/M6/G13) it was about 1000 archery permits/3000 modern/80 ML/300 anterless. You submitted your application with 3 choices. After the draw the left over tags were OTC.
After I left they started hauling in some huge bucks that had good food areas after the wildfires so A22 went to a premium zone and you couldn't get it as a second choice or OTC.
California outlawed cougar hunting. Lets not model ourselves after that joke of a state. Nuff said
Post by: Kittman on February 22, 2016, 01:14:31 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 22, 2016, 01:43:10 PM
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 02:27:58 PM
Quote
Hasn't deer hunting participation dropped 27% in this state since 2007.
Year Hunters Harvest
1997 134,199 28,062
2000 149,971 37,411
2007 139,241 32,999
2008 144,514 35,118
2009 136,859 33,778
2010 131,133 33,391
2011 125,537 29,154
2012 120,082 33,917
2013 123,928 33,657
2014 120,488 35,216
Post by: Rainier10 on February 22, 2016, 02:38:54 PM
Looks like since 2008 hunter #'s have decreased by 17% and harvest #'s have remained the same.QuoteHasn't deer hunting participation dropped 27% in this state since 2007.
Year Hunters Harvest
2007 139,241 32,999
2008 144,514 35,118
2009 136,859 33,778
2010 131,133 33,391
2011 125,537 29,154
2012 120,082 33,917
2013 123,928 33,657
2014 120,488 35,216
Interesting numbers, thanks for posting.
Post by: RadSav on February 22, 2016, 02:49:35 PM
Post by: kentrek on February 22, 2016, 03:00:42 PM
Hasn't deer hunting participation dropped 27% in this state since 2007. Making hunting in this state more difficult will likely reduce that participation even further. I see no benefit to our hunting heritage by going permit only. Look at the states that have done this already. Sure the buck quality increases, but we lose our youth hunters, we lose participation and in large part we lose our voting strength. I haven't seen any case where it has been beneficial to the states or the future of hunting in those states. But heck, I might shoot a bigger buck, so who cares if your kids are the last generation of American hunters! It's all about the me and now, right?
:yeah:
Post by: emac on February 22, 2016, 03:02:11 PM
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on February 22, 2016, 03:05:44 PM
Oops, I must have pulled the "Tags Purchased" number from 2007. I apologies. Still shows a decrees in participation. Increasing that rate of decline is dangerous, IMO.For sure it is still a significant decrease in hunters with just as many animals being taken. The decrease in hunters even if 17% rather than 27% is still very alarming. The amount of animals taken is easily adjusted by number of permits given out and length and timing of general seasons.
Retaining existing hunters and recruiting new ones to fill in for hunters that have lost interest is what they should be concerned about. Especially if it is all about the benjamins. Not just for the state either, think of all the revenue lost by companies that supply hunting equipment. (not sure if you have thought about that Rad, less hunters less people buying your stuff. :chuckle:) I am sure you have thought of it and that is one of the reasons it is so important to you to not limit opportunity especially if there is no backing to say that herd health is in jeopardy.
One of the number one complaints hunters have is lack of land to hunt. As more and more land becomes privatized or that was FFTH and is now closed the more crowded it is going to get on the areas that are still open to free access.
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 03:19:34 PM
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 03:25:17 PM
So...it seems like every day I read on here how someone is going to quit hunting in Washington. I read about people who live in Washington "pledging" to recommit to hunting here, where they live. It makes no sense to me that you wouldn't hunt where you live. Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??A department that does more than lip service for its lic holders. I didnt buy a deer tag this year and dont fell bad about it. I usually hunt local bt. I did get a cougar tag mostly because of the long season and it was only $20 more than my bird hunting.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on February 22, 2016, 03:27:05 PM
Quote
Year Hunters Harvest
1997 134,199 28,062
2000 149,971 37,411
2007 139,241 32,999
2008 144,514 35,118
2009 136,859 33,778
2010 131,133 33,391
2011 125,537 29,154
2012 120,082 33,917
2013 123,928 33,657
2014 120,488 35,216
Post by: Rainier10 on February 22, 2016, 03:37:32 PM
So...it seems like every day I read on here how someone is going to quit hunting in Washington. I read about people who live in Washington "pledging" to recommit to hunting here, where they live. It makes no sense to me that you wouldn't hunt where you live. Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??I think that is the million dollar question.
The WDFW knows they have a problem with retaining and recruiting hunters. The average hunter age just keeps getting older and older. They are trying all kinds of stuff from one year hunter education deferral licenses, making hunter education more available, more permits for youth hunters, they are even trying mentoring projects to get more youth involved. Some teaching teams are trying to recruit more female hunters by offering female only hunter education classes taught by females.
I think getting more females involved is really important and here is why. Studies show that women vote more than men. If you can get them involved and knowledgeable about the sport of hunting and why we use the methods of management we do they will talk to their friends about it and hopefully not vote against hunting issues.
Just my :twocents:
Post by: kentrek on February 22, 2016, 03:50:04 PM
Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
You won't...the public has shifted away from things that take work....it has nothing to do with the hunting opportunity out there its just our attention spans have been programed for immediate pleasures and hunting is far from immediate...it's a long term reward in a short term society...
Being positive is about the only thing you can do, it's just as contagious as being negative..
Post by: jkthomps on February 22, 2016, 04:00:57 PM
Looks like since 2008 hunter #'s have decreased by 17% and harvest #'s have remained the same.QuoteHasn't deer hunting participation dropped 27% in this state since 2007.
Year Hunters Harvest
2007 139,241 32,999
2008 144,514 35,118
2009 136,859 33,778
2010 131,133 33,391
2011 125,537 29,154
2012 120,082 33,917
2013 123,928 33,657
2014 120,488 35,216
Interesting numbers, thanks for posting.
I wonder what the biggest factor was between 2008 and 2014, just those two years specifically. You have nearly the same amount of deer harvested, but 24K less people buying tags. My guess is $$$ was the biggest factor i.e. gas prices, tag/license prices, ammo costs, etcetera...
As far as permit only for mule deer, I would be interested in seeing how many people actually focus solely on mule deer, how many of those people actually successfully get a mule deer, and then how many proposed permits for just mule deer there would be.
Is there any way to find out how many mule deer were harvest out of the 35,216 deer harvested in 2008 and 2014?
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 04:02:16 PM
Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
You won't...the public has shifted away from things that take work....it has nothing to do with the hunting opportunity out there its just our attention spans have been programed for immediate pleasures and hunting is far from immediate...it's a long term reward in a short term society...
Being positive is about the only thing you can do, it's just as contagious as being negative..
That's all I'm trying to do...be positive and bring up some ideas for positive changes. Doesn't seem like many here are interested which, judging by those WDFW numbers, is no surprise. Most seem to want to complain about everything wdfw and do nothing to change it. Seems about par for the course.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 22, 2016, 04:15:49 PM
I'm not saying that we need to go to a draw only sytem just yet, as I would not support that until we have addressed the predator issue that we have. Bring back baiting. Bring back dogs. Kill more coyotes. THEN, and only then, if mule deer numbers still won't rebound, would I fully support a permit system.
Oh and make all the west siders pay NR prices to hunt the east side :sry: :hello: :yike: :chuckle: :peep:
Post by: Bob33 on February 22, 2016, 04:21:16 PM
Oh and make all the west siders pay NR prices to hunt the east side :sry: :hello: :yike: :chuckle: :peep:No need to. President Sanders will be giving us free licenses, along with our free college tuition. Yea!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 22, 2016, 04:23:55 PM
:chuckle: Oh I'm gonna get my money's worth out of that! Not the college thingy but the free licenses. Think I will get a fuel card to go with it :dunno:Oh and make all the west siders pay NR prices to hunt the east side :sry: :hello: :yike: :chuckle: :peep:No need to. President Sanders will be giving us free licenses, along with our free college tuition. Yea!
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2016, 04:28:27 PM
- It appears that WDFW wants to manage for quantity license sales, not quality deer
- WDFW fought tooth and nail to eliminate the 4pt rule in two NE GMU's
- The majority of Washington hunters want opportunity rather than quality
- I learned something I hadn't thought about in a recent conversation with an Idaho Commissioner
Utah has gone to a large number of draw hunts. This has reduced the number of hunters in Utah and the net result is greatly reduced federal Pittman/Robertson funds which are based off of hunters in a state. Apparently this could be one of the reasons Utah has so many auction tags, they need it to fund their F&G. At least in Idaho I don't expect to see many moves that will reduce hunter numbers and that could be a major reason why WDFW is trying to maintain hunter numbers?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 22, 2016, 04:45:13 PM
Post by: Bob33 on February 22, 2016, 04:49:01 PM
Utah has gone to a large number of draw hunts. This has reduced the number of hunters in Utah and the net result is greatly reduced federal Pittman/Robertson funds which are based off of hunters in a state. Apparently this could be one of the reasons Utah has so many auction tags, they need it to fund their F&G. At least in Idaho I don't expect to see many moves that will reduce hunter numbers and that could be a major reason why WDFW is trying to maintain hunter numbers?That's a valid concern. State agencies get significant funding from Pittman-Robertson. (Thanks to Obama, funds are at record levels.)
Washington is 22nd on the list of funds received by state.
See page WR-10 for 2013 data:
http://www.fws.gov/budget/2013/PDF%20Files%20FY%202013%20Greenbook/24.%20Wildlife%20Restoration.pdf
Post by: kentrek on February 22, 2016, 05:06:47 PM
Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
You won't...the public has shifted away from things that take work....it has nothing to do with the hunting opportunity out there its just our attention spans have been programed for immediate pleasures and hunting is far from immediate...it's a long term reward in a short term society...
Being positive is about the only thing you can do, it's just as contagious as being negative..
That's all I'm trying to do...be positive and bring up some ideas for positive changes. Doesn't seem like many here are interested which, judging by those WDFW numbers, is no surprise. Most seem to want to complain about everything wdfw and do nothing to change it. Seems about par for the course.
at least your trying :tup: one problem you have is getting people to agree on what the main issue is for making hunting more enjoyable
Is it less hunters ?
Bigger bucks ?
More bucks ?
More deer in general?
Beings that all our ideas for a successful hunt cover a huge and vast spectrum, how on earth could we manage anything in a way to make folks happy ??
Personally I would prefer to manage similar to idaho elk...have zones with predetermined quotas that are ideal to maintain a healthy (what ever that is) herd...first come first serve we have "x" animals that need to be taken so we sell "x" tags......have a general seasons and keep the draws for units that are really hurting
But that's in a world where we could all agree on what a "healthy" deer herd is
Post by: erk444 on February 22, 2016, 05:11:47 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 22, 2016, 05:14:15 PM
Oops, I must have pulled the "Tags Purchased" number from 2007. I apologies. Still shows a decrees in participation. Increasing that rate of decline is dangerous, IMO.For sure it is still a significant decrease in hunters with just as many animals being taken. The decrease in hunters even if 17% rather than 27% is still very alarming. The amount of animals taken is easily adjusted by number of permits given out and length and timing of general seasons.
In my view of the numbers it shows that the old saying, "10% of the hunters tag 90% of the animals" holds true. Successful veteran hunters will continue to hunt and remain successful even with limited opportunities. The hunters we lose when we reduce opportunity are not those who succeed. The sport needs to attract more young hunters. We need those unsuccessful hunters who simply enjoy being outdoors with a chance. They may become successful hunters if they stay involved in the sport and they may not. They certainly will not if they give up hunting altogether.
... Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
The hunters who will remain when/if there is a draw will be those dedicated successful hunters. The ones we lose will be those who care less about trophy potential and more about just being out and participating. If you want to get more people involved and create a happy hunting environment increase opportunity rather than limit it. Make participation easy rather than difficult. Let new and unsuccessful hunters feel wanted as stewards and voters rather than feeling unwanted by the new breed of elitists and trophy hunters created by record books and TV shows.
Look at the increased participation in the archery shooting sports the past few years. For so long we shamed archers because they did not fit the herculean image of tough guys and master hunters. TV shows and modern movies appealed to the more traditional, have fun, enjoy archery lifestyle. NASP programs were designed so all kids could compete. The Mathews/NASP bows were designed so nearly any child, gender and strength level could shoot, participate and enjoy shooting the bow. NASP is very deliberate in appealing to the weak, the strong, the gifted and the not so gifted. They promote participation above trophies and gargantuan displayed of superiority. It has worked! Archery is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the country now overtaking fly fishing. Archery shops that once had a half dozen range lanes are searching for new locations to double and even triple the amount of lanes.
Look at bowhunting numbers over the past 15 years. We bowhunters like to think of ourselves as the cream of the crop, most elite sportsmen and the almighty gifts from a socialist god. In truth, most hunters who chose to hunt with the bow do so because they have a longer season and can shoot does without a draw system. Those that disagree have a hard time explaining how Oregon was forced to reinstitute archery doe seasons after changing the rules to buck only. Deer tag sales dropped nearly 50% and rifle tags increased nearly 25%. It was such an alarming change of user groups and drop in state revenue the state changed things back before the first season started. Bowhunting's popularity in either/or hunting states is all about opportunity and almost nothing about trophy potential. Trophy potential is our way of rationalizing our new elitist behavior - not about increasing enjoyment or participation.
It's about increasing the ease of participation and appreciating all groups rather than grand standing on divisive elitist principles.
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 06:05:40 PM
That's good stuff. More folks need to do whatever they can to get kids involved. Doesn't have to be their own kids either.
My wife shoots a bow and fly fishes lol. My now 8 year old daughter has been shooting her bow for 2 years now. I've had hints thrown at me to start an archery project in our 4h club. Maybe I should get on that. I'm hesitant because I'm not the most experienced archer in the world. Not sure how I'd do as a teacher.
Post by: bearpaw on February 22, 2016, 06:10:07 PM
Well. I sure hope some people read and listen to what you're saying, Brian.
That's good stuff. More folks need to do whatever they can to get kids involved. Doesn't have to be their own kids either.
My wife shoots a bow and fly fishes lol. My now 8 year old daughter has been shooting her bow for 2 years now. I've had hints thrown at me to start an archery project in our 4h club. Maybe I should get on that. I'm hesitant because I'm not the most experienced archer in the world. Not sure how I'd do as a teacher.
:yeah: :tup:
Post by: UBA on February 22, 2016, 06:11:23 PM
Post by: Dr. Death on February 22, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Post by: bobdog86 on February 22, 2016, 06:33:49 PM
Im all for picking a species or east/west side like elk... :tup:I like the east side/west side option, honestly thats not fair apologies. I hunt SE washington primarily for Muley's, both on public and private land….after the first 4-5 days, most pressure (can't speak for every where) dwindles considerably…..we see plenty of deer, actually more deer than people. Been that way in my family for 60+ years. It did get better after the 3 pt restriction, we see more bucks and does. Fawns are down, we have a predator issue and I believe thats a bigger problem.
Post by: cbond3318 on February 22, 2016, 06:38:02 PM
I think just like the term "trophy hunting" is not used properly, the term "quality" is also mis-used. Quality is not purely based on trophy potential. Quality is adequate numbers of deer for the holding capacity of the land. Quality is healthy buck to doe ratios. Quality is reasonable number of hunters in relation to the specific herd for that gmu. All of this equals a quality hunt and in return, a product of this is also a more mature age class of buck. With better populations you will see higher success rates which usually equates to a positive experience. A positive experience usually results in an attempt to duplicate said experience. That means repeat license sales. Just sayin......
:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 06:48:01 PM
Well said, Karl. Thanks for clarifying pretty much exactly what I've been referring to.I think just like the term "trophy hunting" is not used properly, the term "quality" is also mis-used. Quality is not purely based on trophy potential. Quality is adequate numbers of deer for the holding capacity of the land. Quality is healthy buck to doe ratios. Quality is reasonable number of hunters in relation to the specific herd for that gmu. All of this equals a quality hunt and in return, a product of this is also a more mature age class of buck. With better populations you will see higher success rates which usually equates to a positive experience. A positive experience usually results in an attempt to duplicate said experience. That means repeat license sales. Just sayin......
:yeah: :yeah:
:tup:
Post by: MooseStock on February 22, 2016, 07:52:25 PM
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 08:04:14 PM
Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
You won't...the public has shifted away from things that take work....it has nothing to do with the hunting opportunity out there its just our attention spans have been programed for immediate pleasures and hunting is far from immediate...it's a long term reward in a short term society...
Being positive is about the only thing you can do, it's just as contagious as being negative..
That's all I'm trying to do...be positive and bring up some ideas for positive changes. Doesn't seem like many here are interested which, judging by those WDFW numbers, is no surprise. Most seem to want to complain about everything wdfw and do nothing to change it. Seems about par for the course.
My Guess is that what you and the WDFW are missing is that it is NOT MY JOB to figure out what we are paying them to do. Its clear to me and many others however that the WDFW has done a lot of things Negative that will affect thier ability for a long time. I was quite vocal with my reps and anyone who would listen(as were many here) when the WDFW asked for sportsmens help to prevent a merger. Im not really sure how it was we were thanked for going to bat for them. It sure hasnt been making sportsmen Priority #1 in thier book. I think there are a LOT of reasons affecting the success of the WDFW, leadership being the biggest negative and we have not been able to affect real change.
From a business perspective the WDFW suffers because they dont see the cash value of hunters Proof of this has been when the Department shows how little Lic contribute with out linking those some Lic to P& R funds as if they were unrelated.
Post by: bobcat on February 22, 2016, 08:17:04 PM
I've often wondered if we should just have the same season as the Yakama tribe, in the areas that are open for them to hunt. (Year around, no limit) I bet they'd suddenly see the need to reduce the length of their season and limit their members to a reasonable number of animals they could harvest each year.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 08:31:06 PM
... Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
The hunters who will remain when/if there is a draw will be those dedicated successful hunters. The ones we lose will be those who care less about trophy potential and more about just being out and participating. If you want to get more people involved and create a happy hunting environment increase opportunity rather than limit it. Make participation easy rather than difficult. Let new and unsuccessful hunters feel wanted as stewards and voters rather than feeling unwanted by the new breed of elitists and trophy hunters created by record books and TV shows.
Look at the increased participation in the archery shooting sports the past few years. For so long we shamed archers because they did not fit the herculean image of tough guys and master hunters. TV shows and modern movies appealed to the more traditional, have fun, enjoy archery lifestyle. NASP programs were designed so all kids could compete. The Mathews/NASP bows were designed so nearly any child, gender and strength level could shoot, participate and enjoy shooting the bow. NASP is very deliberate in appealing to the weak, the strong, the gifted and the not so gifted. They promote participation above trophies and gargantuan displayed of superiority. It has worked! Archery is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the country now overtaking fly fishing. Archery shops that once had a half dozen range lanes are searching for new locations to double and even triple the amount of lanes.
Look at bowhunting numbers over the past 15 years. We bowhunters like to think of ourselves as the cream of the crop, most elite sportsmen and the almighty gifts from a socialist god. In truth, most hunters who chose to hunt with the bow do so because they have a longer season and can shoot does without a draw system. Those that disagree have a hard time explaining how Oregon was forced to reinstitute archery doe seasons after changing the rules to buck only. Deer tag sales dropped nearly 50% and rifle tags increased nearly 25%. It was such an alarming change of user groups and drop in state revenue the state changed things back before the first season started. Bowhunting's popularity in either/or hunting states is all about opportunity and almost nothing about trophy potential. Trophy potential is our way of rationalizing our new elitist behavior - not about increasing enjoyment or participation.
It's about increasing the ease of participation and appreciating all groups rather than grand standing on divisive elitist principles.
The quotes in read really strike at the heart of the issue. More focus needs to be on making hunting easy, Fun, and less intimidating. I usually bow hunt for the season. Im a weekend, afternoon warrior and quit modern because i wanted more time to get out. Every time a new complicated rule gets passed, an extra fee etc hunting becomes more of a hassle instead of an experience. Im not sure if it was poster on here or not, but i remember reading that a study was done to try and assess why people were leaving the sport or not getting into it. COMPLEX RULES was at the top.
As hunters we are our worst enemies. We hunters cannot seem to come together. We are head strong, individualists, who dont listen to others well. It has been said on here several times that FISHING Groups have found ways to come together to make a clear loud unified voice on issues making it easy for the legislature and the WDFW to address issue. WE have not done this. The best example of it working for the hunting community is all of the archery Orgs WSAA, WA bowhunters and Trad hunters of wa coming together and hashing issues of agreement out so that a large block of sportsmen can be used as a block to hold weight to recommendations. We REALLY need some kind of Super Pack meeting of many sportsmen and animal groups (RMEF, Mule deer, Blacktail foundation, Turkey, Sheep etc) to come together on some basic points and push them on the WDFW. They will only respond under pressure and numbers. I know i have mentioned this to our WSAA rep Ren and to Mule Deer on here. Whatever conservation or sporting group you belong to you need to repeat that we need a Washington Sportsmans coalition to beat back some of the stupidity we face.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 08:34:19 PM
I agree that trying to limit our harvest to improve mule deer numbers is pointless due to tribal hunting. Some of you may remember the Umtanum unit (342) was draw only for a few years. That was about 15 years ago, and it didn't last long because the tribal guys were simply killing all the extra deer that weren't getting killed by us. So I think it was only permit only for two or three years before the WDFW realized the lack of a general season wasn't helping, so they opened it back up.
I've often wondered if we should just have the same season as the Yakama tribe, in the areas that are open for them to hunt. (Year around, no limit) I bet they'd suddenly see the need to reduce the length of their season and limit their members to a reasonable number of animals they could harvest each year.
It is hard to make any kind of real improvements when only one side plays by a set of rules. I bet it would bring the tribes to the table but the WDFW does not have the fortitude to do it mainly because their Handler (the Gov) gets lots of tribal # to leave them alone.
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 09:14:13 PM
... Anyway, my point is what needs to be done to get those people back and happy about hunting here in Washington. So, what's it going to take??
The hunters who will remain when/if there is a draw will be those dedicated successful hunters. The ones we lose will be those who care less about trophy potential and more about just being out and participating. If you want to get more people involved and create a happy hunting environment increase opportunity rather than limit it. Make participation easy rather than difficult. Let new and unsuccessful hunters feel wanted as stewards and voters rather than feeling unwanted by the new breed of elitists and trophy hunters created by record books and TV shows.
Look at the increased participation in the archery shooting sports the past few years. For so long we shamed archers because they did not fit the herculean image of tough guys and master hunters. TV shows and modern movies appealed to the more traditional, have fun, enjoy archery lifestyle. NASP programs were designed so all kids could compete. The Mathews/NASP bows were designed so nearly any child, gender and strength level could shoot, participate and enjoy shooting the bow. NASP is very deliberate in appealing to the weak, the strong, the gifted and the not so gifted. They promote participation above trophies and gargantuan displayed of superiority. It has worked! Archery is one of the fastest growing women's sports in the country now overtaking fly fishing. Archery shops that once had a half dozen range lanes are searching for new locations to double and even triple the amount of lanes.
Look at bowhunting numbers over the past 15 years. We bowhunters like to think of ourselves as the cream of the crop, most elite sportsmen and the almighty gifts from a socialist god. In truth, most hunters who chose to hunt with the bow do so because they have a longer season and can shoot does without a draw system. Those that disagree have a hard time explaining how Oregon was forced to reinstitute archery doe seasons after changing the rules to buck only. Deer tag sales dropped nearly 50% and rifle tags increased nearly 25%. It was such an alarming change of user groups and drop in state revenue the state changed things back before the first season started. Bowhunting's popularity in either/or hunting states is all about opportunity and almost nothing about trophy potential. Trophy potential is our way of rationalizing our new elitist behavior - not about increasing enjoyment or participation.
It's about increasing the ease of participation and appreciating all groups rather than grand standing on divisive elitist principles.
The quotes in read really strike at the heart of the issue. More focus needs to be on making hunting easy, Fun, and less intimidating. I usually bow hunt for the season. Im a weekend, afternoon warrior and quit modern because i wanted more time to get out. Every time a new complicated rule gets passed, an extra fee etc hunting becomes more of a hassle instead of an experience. Im not sure if it was poster on here or not, but i remember reading that a study was done to try and assess why people were leaving the sport or not getting into it. COMPLEX RULES was at the top.
As hunters we are our worst enemies. We hunters cannot seem to come together. We are head strong, individualists, who dont listen to others well. It has been said on here several times that FISHING Groups have found ways to come together to make a clear loud unified voice on issues making it easy for the legislature and the WDFW to address issue. WE have not done this. The best example of it working for the hunting community is all of the archery Orgs WSAA, WA bowhunters and Trad hunters of wa coming together and hashing issues of agreement out so that a large block of sportsmen can be used as a block to hold weight to recommendations. We REALLY need some kind of Super Pack meeting of many sportsmen and animal groups (RMEF, Mule deer, Blacktail foundation, Turkey, Sheep etc) to come together on some basic points and push them on the WDFW. They will only respond under pressure and numbers. I know i have mentioned this to our WSAA rep Ren and to Mule Deer on here. Whatever conservation or sporting group you belong to you need to repeat that we need a Washington Sportsmans coalition to beat back some of the stupidity we face.
The last post you quoted said its not our job...., then this quoted post mentions several wildlife org's who are here to push for things to happen. So which one is it? Are you part of the solution? Are you involved with any of the wildlife org's you mentioned? If not, maybe you should be. I'm assuming you specifically are, Special T. The latter part was more of a generic "you".
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 09:53:27 PM
Post 1
The WDFW NEEDS ME! I am its customer. They need ME to buy a lic so that they get my $ ant the P&R funds. Im not really sure why because The only thing i have heard that they have done well was the reintroduction of turkeys to some areas a while back. The department NEEDS to make the case WHY I NEED THEM! It cannot be for enforcing wildlife laws. Operation Cody is proof enough of that, in addition to the joke of a TV program that they currently are on. Is it for all the habitat improvements they have been doing? Kinda think that has been the work of nonprofits and individual hard work. Has it been the increased Opportunities? Department of AG shot a bunch of elk in the skagit valley that could have been some ones opportunity... Is it because they are our voice to the general public of the $ we provide, the volunteer work done and our role in managing healthy populations? Cant say that i think this is the case either... While they couldnt come out for or against the baiting and dogg running initiatives they could have spoken about how it factually works so that the generally ignorant public could have at least had an informed decision.
There is a Looong term trend that shows that the Department is not the alley they say they are to the hunting community. Unless THEY address this THEY are doomed... New leadership at the top spot hasnt done a whole lot...
I dont need the department to take my kids out the woods to teach them how to track game, find edible plants, make a fire, sleep in the raining woods, Shoot a bow, musket or rifle... I dont even need them to teach my kids to hunt or fish because I can do that in other states, Besides the fishing is much better in Canada anyway. I can still pass on all the things necessary for skills and heritage without the WDFW and its about time that they realize that there are MANY other opportunities for my time and $.
Im informed enough to know that the WDFW faces some really tough challenges, BUT WHO DOESNT! We do pay them after all... A fact they like to gloss over i might add. Perhaps they should look at US as valued customers instead of irritants that they must endure. This is the Crux of my first post
Post 2
While it is not our job to ensure the success of the WDFW we could make it a little clearer for them to get it right. Doesnt meant they will But If your going to put forth some effort this is the ONLY thing that has a Icream cones chance in summer of helping.
If we are gona have a fighting chance we need a Big coalition Coastal Conservation Association is an organization to model after. I am not a member but have been told by several people "In The Know" that these guys have rallied all manner of fishing and conservation groups together to push for specific objectives. The Washington Archery coalition had better success with the WDFW when members in each ORG sat down and hashed out a plan before involving the department. Gov Bureaucracies LIKE big blocks of people with well known names because it gives them cover form when another group gets thier panties in a twist.
So which is it? Its both posts. You cant force the department guys to do anything especially with the likes of Jay Inslee as Governor and the knuckleheads running the department right now. That doesnt mean that you cant make it uncomfortable for these freeloaders who are taking OUR $ and not taking care of us. The best Defense is a good offense. We have been like a herd of cats trying to navigate a single direction. Im certain that we could find 3-4 points of mutual agreement on a broad range or Orgs to build some success and move onward and upward from there. Who knows We may even be blessed with a reasonable governor in the near future.
Post by: Special T on February 22, 2016, 10:04:47 PM
Well. I sure hope some people read and listen to what you're saying, Brian.
That's good stuff. More folks need to do whatever they can to get kids involved. Doesn't have to be their own kids either.
My wife shoots a bow and fly fishes lol. My now 8 year old daughter has been shooting her bow for 2 years now. I've had hints thrown at me to start an archery project in our 4h club. Maybe I should get on that. I'm hesitant because I'm not the most experienced archer in the world. Not sure how I'd do as a teacher.
Did you get my PM on the 4h info?
Post by: jackelope on February 22, 2016, 10:53:14 PM
Well. I sure hope some people read and listen to what you're saying, Brian.
That's good stuff. More folks need to do whatever they can to get kids involved. Doesn't have to be their own kids either.
My wife shoots a bow and fly fishes lol. My now 8 year old daughter has been shooting her bow for 2 years now. I've had hints thrown at me to start an archery project in our 4h club. Maybe I should get on that. I'm hesitant because I'm not the most experienced archer in the world. Not sure how I'd do as a teacher.
Did you get my PM on the 4h info?
I did, yes, thank you. I was actually at 4h rabbit club when I got it. Thanks again!!
Post by: baldopepper on February 23, 2016, 07:09:09 AM
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2016, 07:50:37 AM
I believe there are a lot more factors that go into the decline of hunting than just the ease of permitting or finding a place to hunt. Just a simple look at how the world around us has changed in the last few years explains most of it. When I was young most people hunted because they needed/wanted to fill the freezer, kids didn't have so many organized activities to participate in on the weekends, both parents working with little extra time was not common, kids didn't have a computer and color tv in their bedroom to keep them occupied and groups like PETA didn't exist. Wildlife agencies across the country answered almost exclusively to the hunting/fishing community and were staffed mostly by people with a hunting fishing background. I don't believe that the difficulty in permitting or finding a place to hunt even enters into the top 5 reasons younger people are not getting into hunting, but making both easier would certainly be a step in the right direction. We, as hunters, seem to forget at times that wildlife agencies across the country no longer manage just for the hunting community. The pressures on them from groups that didn't even exist 20 years ago are intense and have to be listened to as intently as the pressures from hunting groups, they are also voters. Everyone seems to think they are an expert in game management-hunters who want more opportunity, anti hunters who want no opportunity and the majority who don't have an opinion and could care less either way. Hunting was something their grandpa did and if they want a steak they'll go to Safeway to buy it and of course spend 30 minutes picking out just the right wine to go with it. Trying to appease all of these people and the separate groups within the hunting community (do we manage for more opportunity or do we manage for only more trophy opportunity) is a task I don't want any part of. As an avid hunter I'll keep mulling my way thru the proclamations, finding a permit to hunt with and scouting out a place to hunt. I can't answer for anyone else and don't have enough time left to spend a lot of it worrying or complaining about how the world is continuing to change.
All the thing you say are true.. The WDFW faces many challenges, and perhaps Id be more understanding if we didnt get excuses and they actually tackled problems. WE hunters have a vested intrest in the future of hunting and by extension the WDFW. ANTI HUNTERS DONT! WE supply huge amounts of $ & Time to conservation... Most of the complainers do not. If the department is too scared to show/state that HUNTERS are at the front of conservation and not all these bunny hugging Anti Groups, then there is no way for the WDFW to save itself from its ultimate demise. Why? They are too afraid to embrace the very reason for thier existence, and they cannot Morph into a more PC agency that derives its funds some place else than hunting. Its quite schizophrenic really. They plead for our support to protect them from being combined with Parks and DNR where they would have less attachment to us... When we rally our support they treat us like red headed stepchildren. They do this by constantly favoring what ever Anti group that comes along to steal opportunity and then scold us for not doing more to hang onto our heritage.
Post by: sagewalker on February 23, 2016, 07:55:46 AM
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2016, 08:01:45 AM
Why just mule deer?
I think its just a blind attempt to do something since the Department seems rudderless.
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 09:04:09 AM
Why just mule deer?
I think its just a blind attempt to do something since the Department seems rudderless.
No blind attempt here from me. I chose mule deer totally on purpose. It was because I believe mule deer are the easiest deer to kill. I'm not saying big, mature mountain mule deer. I mean specifically younger age class, dumb, farm country bucks that stand there and stare at you while you squeeze the trigger. They're too vulnerable. Whitetails would have been long gone a long time ago, they're too skiddish to stand around chatting about the weather, and blacktail, well...they live in the jungle.
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: boneaddict on February 23, 2016, 09:59:13 AM
This is one aspect of immediate help. This doesn't include long term such as range management. Fire, suppression or the acute lack thereof, blah blah.
Post by: JDHasty on February 23, 2016, 10:01:37 AM
As long as those who put in for the permit were not allowed to hunt blacktails if they weren't drawn I'd support it.
:yeah:
Post by: hoof rot on February 23, 2016, 10:22:02 AM
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 10:23:13 AM
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 10:25:14 AM
You want to help mule deer.... curb tribal harvest in ceded areas, especially in regards to the unregulated tribes. Then second, curb antlerless harvest. You can't increase a herd if you are killing your baby makers. Third, manage predators effectively. Fourth, decrease pressure, regulated hunting from 9/1 thru 12/31, or unregulated from August through March.:yeah:
This is one aspect of immediate help. This doesn't include long term such as range management. Fire, suppression or the acute lack thereof, blah blah.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 10:29:11 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 10:46:05 AM
How many who would supprt this live on the east side?
I think this thread has detoured itself, which is totally fine and expected, from the original subject to looking for whatever ways we can find to improve the future of hunting in our state. I hope that regardless of whatever side of the mountains you live on, you're interested in preserving the future of hunting.
If you want to make it out like it's an eastside versus westside thing, I can tell you that I personally spend tons of time over there and have family over there. Not sure if that makes a difference in the angle of your thoughts, but the thoughts and ideas that come from this thread shouldn't have anything to do with what side of the mountains one lives on.
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 10:46:40 AM
You want to help mule deer.... curb tribal harvest in ceded areas, especially in regards to the unregulated tribes. Then second, curb antlerless harvest. You can't increase a herd if you are killing your baby makers. Third, manage predators effectively. Fourth, decrease pressure, regulated hunting from 9/1 thru 12/31, or unregulated from August through March.
This is one aspect of immediate help. This doesn't include long term such as range management. Fire, suppression or the acute lack thereof, blah blah.
I agree.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:01:57 AM
I think naturally your opinion of mule deer hunting differs depending what side of the mountains your from. I think it would be an interesting poll tho...I could be totally wrong....but I think more hunters from the west side would be more inclined to permit mule deer hunting on the east side me than the east side would....someone from the east is probly more likely to be successful at hunting mule deer here and not see any problem at filling a tag just like someone from the west side is more likely to tag a black tail...If I went over there I would probly have a hard time getting a black tail...maybe my view doesn't actually have any research behind it...just my opinion...How many who would supprt this live on the east side?
I think this thread has detoured itself, which is totally fine and expected, from the original subject to looking for whatever ways we can find to improve the future of hunting in our state. I hope that regardless of whatever side of the mountains you live on, you're interested in preserving the future of hunting.
If you want to make it out like it's an eastside versus westside thing, I can tell you that I personally spend tons of time over there and have family over there. Not sure if that makes a difference in the angle of your thoughts, but the thoughts and ideas that come from this thread shouldn't have anything to do with what side of the mountains one lives on.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:16:28 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 11:21:06 AM
I think naturally your opinion of mule deer hunting differs depending what side of the mountains your from. I think it would be an interesting poll tho...I could be totally wrong....but I think more hunters from the west side would be more inclined to permit mule deer hunting on the east side me than the east side would....someone from the east is probly more likely to be successful at hunting mule deer here and not see any problem at filling a tag just like someone from the west side is more likely to tag a black tail...If I went over there I would probly have a hard time getting a black tail...maybe my view doesn't actually have any research behind it...just my opinion...How many who would supprt this live on the east side?
I think this thread has detoured itself, which is totally fine and expected, from the original subject to looking for whatever ways we can find to improve the future of hunting in our state. I hope that regardless of whatever side of the mountains you live on, you're interested in preserving the future of hunting.
If you want to make it out like it's an eastside versus westside thing, I can tell you that I personally spend tons of time over there and have family over there. Not sure if that makes a difference in the angle of your thoughts, but the thoughts and ideas that come from this thread shouldn't have anything to do with what side of the mountains one lives on.
I've lived in Washington since 1997. I've hunted here in WA since about 2002 I think. I've killed 4 whitetails and 6 mule deer(mostly dinks) I think. I've never killed a blacktail. I've probably put in a legitimate 7 days max hunting blacktails in that time and I've never even seen a legal buck in the woods.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:26:44 AM
Post by: Special T on February 23, 2016, 11:32:20 AM
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I547 using Tapatalk
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 23, 2016, 11:34:04 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 11:37:28 AM
So should black tail be more regulated before mule deer?
I don't think so. I believe it has everything to do with habitat and their habits. Blacktail live in the jungle, very difficult to hunt, tough to see, they don't come out much in the open, etc. Quite frankly, they're super frustrating to hunt if you're me. I don't have the patience for them. I think a lot of folks are like me in that regard. I have a ton of respect for the folks that consistently kill mature blacktails. Those folks have skills.
Mule deer typically live in more open country, are not very skiddish, are easily seen, etc. They're just easier to find and easier to kill.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:42:07 AM
Well of course the deer have bounced back in the last ten years. How could they not when you look at the epically dismal numbers they were at post winter of 96 and the hair loss. I saw more legal bucks this year locally than I have in a long time but not even close to the numbers we used to see. Oh and I live on the east side, born and raised.Me too...from most hunters here I have talked to its way better now than is was 30 plus years ago....at least in the area we hunt...when we are hunting coyotes at night we have run across over a thousand in one night...the last time I didn't get a buck I was a little kid...I don't see a need to permit it...at all...
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 11:46:01 AM
Well of course the deer have bounced back in the last ten years. How could they not when you look at the epically dismal numbers they were at post winter of 96 and the hair loss. I saw more legal bucks this year locally than I have in a long time but not even close to the numbers we used to see. Oh and I live on the east side, born and raised.Me too...from most hunters here I have talked to its way better now than is was 30 plus years ago....at least in the area we hunt...when we are hunting coyotes at night we have run across over a thousand in one night...the last time I didn't get a buck I was a little kid...I don't see a need to permit it...at all...
Just curious, and I assume you are, but are you hunting and seeing all those deer on public land?
Post by: rtspring on February 23, 2016, 11:52:16 AM
I think the big mule deer areas, okanogan and such have seen declines but other areas are doing great..
I think the way it is is fine other than killinv does in areas that show decline
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:56:40 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 23, 2016, 12:04:50 PM
Second, you can't compare a unit like the desert, which is 100% permit only, and always has been, to other public land units with general seasons.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 12:08:42 PM
Two things. Deer numbers may be up in the last decade but the are FAR from what they have been.sorry drive up the swakane entiat Waterville alot of public land and it's hunted hard aND I see more deer there than the desert unit...I'd tell ya where I see the most but that's where I hunt...lol
Second, you can't compare a unit like the desert, which is 100% permit only, and always has been, to other public land units with general seasons.
Post by: stw on February 23, 2016, 12:16:37 PM
Post by: baldopepper on February 23, 2016, 01:04:32 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 01:20:51 PM
Mostly a mix...drive through the desert unit at night...there is so much prime public land out there...some of the biggest bucks I have ever seen are on public land...just gotta get off the road to hunt em...if ya wanna hunt private land...do the work to build relationships with landowners...the deer are there....and if they have made such a great comeback from horrible numbers with really no added regulations to really bring their number back....why change it?
Using the desert unit as your example just amplifies the benefits of permit only hunting.
:dunno:
I killed my buck this past year on private land. Most of the deer I've killed have been on private land. I have no issue developing relationships with landowners.
As far as making a great comeback...that may be the case, but they haven't made a "great" comeback...they've only made a comeback. Deer numbers aren't booming...maybe they're just back to normal.
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 01:22:53 PM
Two things. Deer numbers may be up in the last decade but the are FAR from what they have been.sorry drive up the swakane entiat Waterville alot of public land and it's hunted hard aND I see more deer there than the desert unit...I'd tell ya where I see the most but that's where I hunt...lol
Second, you can't compare a unit like the desert, which is 100% permit only, and always has been, to other public land units with general seasons.
Do those sorts of deer numbers happen in the Swakane and Entiat in September/October too or only in December/January/winter when the deer are down for winter? I've only ever hunted the Swakane during the late archery and I agree, tons of deer.
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 01:23:27 PM
Just want that to be clear.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 23, 2016, 01:24:09 PM
Quote
Poaching abatement
While not a population concern in most areas, the public perception is that poaching
abatement is an important tool for preserving the hunted population. Certainly, in quality hunt
areas, poaching of trophy mule deer bucks has been the cause of public outcry. It is important
that the Department enforce the game regulations both to retain public support and to encourage
all hunters to respect bag limits and other restrictions. Wildlife enforcement officers report that 9
out of 10 mule deer hunters that they contact are in compliance with all game regulations. This
rate of compliance should be maintained.
It doesn't make me feel better about those in charge. I added the underlining and bolding of font. Seems they feel stopping poaching is not necessary except to keep public outcry down.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01755/wdfw01755.pdf
Post by: Maverick on February 23, 2016, 01:46:28 PM
I'd be okay with buying Westside or east side deer tags like elk and then being able to hunt both if drawing a multiseason tag. Also would like to see blacktail go to 3 point minimum. Entiat and areas around there need more hunting pressure not less. A buddy was over there this last weekend and said they saw way too many winter kills. There isn't the food there to support that big of herds.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 02:29:14 PM
PS these are legit questions I'm asking...I'm not trying to flip you crap.I get what your asking...but animals are unpredictable....it's like asking if u see more coyotes at night or during the day...I see more deer in one canyon than the next...I shot my buck very low in the swakane this year in a late hunt...no one thought any deer had really come down yet...there wasnt even snow yet...and it was a 170inch buck...
Just want that to be clear.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 23, 2016, 02:37:27 PM
pics or it didn't happen :chuckle:PS these are legit questions I'm asking...I'm not trying to flip you crap.I get what your asking...but animals are unpredictable....it's like asking if u see more coyotes at night or during the day...I see more deer in one canyon than the next...I shot my buck very low in the swakane this year in a late hunt...no one thought any deer had really come down yet...there wasnt even snow yet...and it was a 170inch buck...
Just want that to be clear.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 23, 2016, 03:14:33 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Gringo31 on February 23, 2016, 03:17:01 PM
Seems the last 7 years harvest has increased. The Naches area took a pounding with the doe harvest but other than that, it's hard (by these charts) to see an issue.
Post by: predatorpro on February 23, 2016, 11:07:33 PM
Lol! I think I posted em once before but here it is again!pics or it didn't happen :chuckle:PS these are legit questions I'm asking...I'm not trying to flip you crap.I get what your asking...but animals are unpredictable....it's like asking if u see more coyotes at night or during the day...I see more deer in one canyon than the next...I shot my buck very low in the swakane this year in a late hunt...no one thought any deer had really come down yet...there wasnt even snow yet...and it was a 170inch buck...
Just want that to be clear.
Post by: jackelope on February 23, 2016, 11:10:48 PM
Post by: RadSav on February 23, 2016, 11:11:19 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 24, 2016, 06:52:33 AM
Post by: hunt2hunt810 on February 24, 2016, 09:48:03 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 24, 2016, 09:57:17 AM
Washington state needs to change late archery season to not interfere with mulie rut. The state also needs to allow more 'any whitetail' permits. It is absolutely saddening to watch bow hunters hunting mulies when the deer are trying to mate and are dumb as hell cuz the bucks have one thing on their mind (does). Not really hunting at that time of year.But the rifle permits are ok :dunno:
Vast majority of breeding is done by the Nov 25th opener of late archery. Ya you have some doe's coming into a second estrus but most of your breeding is done.
Post by: bobcat on February 24, 2016, 10:09:15 AM
Not that I don't think it might help to limit the number of hunters at that time. Permit only for late archery mule deer is something that should be considered.
Post by: boneaddict on February 24, 2016, 10:32:37 AM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2016, 10:55:52 AM
The rut is over by the time late archery season starts. I think it's snow that helps with that hunt more than anything (and big piles of apples I've heard)
The rut is definitely not over by time late archery starts.
Washington state needs to change late archery season to not interfere with mulie rut. The state also needs to allow more 'any whitetail' permits. It is absolutely saddening to watch bow hunters hunting mulies when the deer are trying to mate and are dumb as hell cuz the bucks have one thing on their mind (does). Not really hunting at that time of year.But the rifle permits are ok :dunno:
Vast majority of breeding is done by the Nov 25th opener of late archery. Ya you have some doe's coming into a second estrus but most of your breeding is done.
Rifle permits are draw only and they limit the amount of hunters, from 10-25 normally. Late archery is a general season with thousands of hunters.
I'm not condoning the comment on changing the late archery season dates either, however, there needs to be some modifications in areas. :twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 24, 2016, 11:08:22 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2016, 11:14:28 AM
Be careful what you wish for! I know for me I didnt invest 20k dollars to MAYBE draw a tag and go hunting!!!I personally don't have to kill a 200" mule deer. Ever. I'd love to, but it's not something I look for specifically in a quality experience. I'm looking for the place, the scenery, the adventure, the time with friends and the hope to harvest a mature buck. All the while I don't want to be surrounded by a sea of orange.
I invested to go every year!
Here is a problem that never gets addressed! Since when do you have to go out and shoot a 200" inch muley? You dont but everyone seems to want to change rules just so they can go shoot bigger and bigger and bigger deer! Its getting to the point where I just dont care to hear a score anymore! If we keep going the way were headed, hunting will only be a rich mans game.
What a disgrace. No way will I ever agree to a draw only hunting.
I don't have $20k invested, never will and i don't personally think anyone needs to spend that much money on hunting.
Remind me to buy you a beer the next time our paths cross Josh.
Well said. :tup:
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2016, 11:17:40 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 24, 2016, 11:19:47 AM
No matter what happens, we as hunters will always have different opinions on how DFW should manage the game, seasons, and dates. In the end, I truly hope they manage it with the herd health being put forth first, even if it affects some of my/our seasons. The ball is definitely in DFW's hands now with several concerning issues on hand. Just hoping sound management is chosen over monetary reasons. :twocents::yeah:
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2016, 11:29:55 AM
Oops, I must have pulled the "Tags Purchased" number from 2007. I apologies. Still shows a decrees in participation. Increasing that rate of decline is dangerous, IMO.For sure it is still a significant decrease in hunters with just as many animals being taken. The decrease in hunters even if 17% rather than 27% is still very alarming. The amount of animals taken is easily adjusted by number of permits given out and length and timing of general seasons.
Retaining existing hunters and recruiting new ones to fill in for hunters that have lost interest is what they should be concerned about. Especially if it is all about the benjamins. Not just for the state either, think of all the revenue lost by companies that supply hunting equipment. (not sure if you have thought about that Rad, less hunters less people buying your stuff. :chuckle:) I am sure you have thought of it and that is one of the reasons it is so important to you to not limit opportunity especially if there is no backing to say that herd health is in jeopardy.
One of the number one complaints hunters have is lack of land to hunt. As more and more land becomes privatized or that was FFTH and is now closed the more crowded it is going to get on the areas that are still open to free access.
I am not sure lack of interest in hunters in the problem. I think you are seeing the Baby Boomers falling off due to age and less hunter recruitment.
Because hunting takes time. Many younger folks 30-40 having trouble making time for a hunting trip.
My son, 28 , Loves hunting camp but has not been in camp more than a couple days in two years . Just too busy making a living and raising a family.
Post by: ghosthunter on February 24, 2016, 11:37:28 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 24, 2016, 11:38:49 AM
I assume you are saying thousands hunt the late archery season statewide and not in one GMU correct? If you are talking about a particular GMU I would like to know which one that is.The rut is over by the time late archery season starts. I think it's snow that helps with that hunt more than anything (and big piles of apples I've heard)
The rut is definitely not over by time late archery starts.Washington state needs to change late archery season to not interfere with mulie rut. The state also needs to allow more 'any whitetail' permits. It is absolutely saddening to watch bow hunters hunting mulies when the deer are trying to mate and are dumb as hell cuz the bucks have one thing on their mind (does). Not really hunting at that time of year.But the rifle permits are ok :dunno:
Vast majority of breeding is done by the Nov 25th opener of late archery. Ya you have some doe's coming into a second estrus but most of your breeding is done.
Rifle permits are draw only and they limit the amount of hunters, from 10-25 normally. Late archery is a general season with thousands of hunters.
I'm not condoning the comment on changing the late archery season dates either, however, there needs to be some modifications in areas. :twocents:
I hunt Swakane, one that most say is overcrowded and the hunter numbers I have seen from the game department haven't been over 900 in the years that I have been following them and once they eliminated the general doe season the hunter numbers dropped back down to the 600's.
I think 2008 was the high total of 889 hunters and the following year when it went back to 3pt buck only they went back to 630 archery hunters. Those numbers of hunters aren't broken out between early and late season, I assume they are mostly late season but I am sure there are some early season archers in there.
Post by: Odell on February 24, 2016, 02:23:42 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2016, 06:09:48 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 24, 2016, 06:19:52 PM
Rainier10, I'm talking all the units open for general late archery. Also, no way would I believe the numbers of hunters per gmu, per season are accurate. I know the reports are there only tool for numbers, but the huge majority of the people I know get through those surveys as fast as they can. Many also think that fudging on GMU's will benefit them in some way, like hiding their units. I laugh.:tup:
I hear ya, I wish people would report accurately. I wonder if those that don't report accurately are the same ones complaining that the WDFW doesn't manage game correctly. I am not saying WDFW is perfect but if one of the main tools they have to use is not accurate how can we expect them to do a good job?
Sorry to get this sidetracked I just was wondering if there was a GMU out there that was getting pounded that bad.
I would like to see more units open in the late season, I don't think it would increase the number of hunters but I think it would spread them out more.
I don't know what all the answers are but certainly like threads like this that bring so many ideas and opinions out to consider.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2016, 06:26:50 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 24, 2016, 06:33:14 PM
The problem I have with permit only or alternating units that are open is we have been hunting the same unit as a family for 20plus years.
Hunting is a tradition for many and I think if you break that tradition you lose interest, if you lose interest you lose hunters.
Right now loss of hunters and recruitment of new hunters is a real issue and I would hate to do anything that sped that up.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2016, 06:59:34 PM
, a guy has to adjust and not rely on traditions as much as we once could. Even if that made breaking up a hunting camp which has happened to me. :twocents:
Post by: Hot Lunch on February 24, 2016, 07:57:06 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 24, 2016, 08:36:04 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on February 24, 2016, 09:13:38 PM
The decisions the WDFW make should be based on science and to the benefit of all wildlife species and the environment as a whole, not just to benefit the game animals. Part of managing game animals is managing the predator population. The science will show what the optimum numbers of different species are, but science cannot predict wildfires, harsh winters, and other impacts to the populations. I can't say that the WDFW is managing all these things to the maximum benefit, but there is a lot more to managing wildlife than maximizing the number of deer and elk in the state.
Now, while science should be a significant factor in determining how the WDFW manages all the species, and hunting is one of the tools in their toolbox to manage the numbers, there are a lot of other things that the department considers, and a lot of them are political and non-science based. Not only that, but with the state, actually getting the scientific data is a nightmare, with years of planning, budgeting, proposals, approvals, you name it, it's all preventing the state from managing in a flexible and responsive way. To get the science which says what is most beneficial (permit vs. general season) is a cluster in and of itself (thanks to the bureaucracy of government).
We are hunters, and we want abundant, quality wildlife, in areas we can hunt without a lot of other hunters around, and we want liberal seasons with no predators competing for our game and no west side hunters on the east side and all kinds of conflicting things, we as a bunch are only ONE of many parties the WDFD must consider in creating a holistic policy for all Washington Wildlife.
20 years ago in Pennsylvania, there were HUGE numbers of deer. Everyone hunted and bagged game. Most of what they were bagging were spikes and small antlerless deer. It was not a healthy herd. The Game Commission started reducing the herd to improve the health of the herd by upping the antlerless harvests, and instituted a 3 point minimum for bucks. Hunters were outraged and many quit hunting because the plan was to "kill all the deer with all these doe permits". However, the state had to manage wildlife in a way that was healthy for the environment, which included the forests, which was a huge resource for the state and it's citizens. Part of managing the forests was managing the deer population, which did major damage to young trees. It was not about making the hunters happy, but managing all the wildlife in the state for all concerned parties. After a few lean years, the quality of deer went up, the number of hunters went down, and those of us that waited it out had much better, less crowded hunting. It may not have been the best thing that there were less people hunting (and less hunters voting), but it made those of us who worked hard hunting deer pretty happy, and the timber companies and the state were happy as well.
I'm just throwing this out because it seems like folks feel like the WDFW is "The Department of Hunting and Fishing" and that hunters are the only stakeholder. There are a lot more things they must consider than hunters desire for trophy bucks, LOTS of deer, and few hunters in their spot on opening day. While all these concerns are valid, there are many reasons (legit and not so legit, science based and political) why what we want as hunters isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not we hunt by permit or general seasons only. There are also a lot of conflicting things we want as individuals within a the group, and conflicting things we want as a group as a whole. Just think about "we need more hunters", "we want more deer", and "we want less people hunting where we are hunting". That's conflict in what we want. (Yes, I know, not everyone wants these things).
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 25, 2016, 06:36:19 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 25, 2016, 07:06:17 AM
Chiliwist was a fav of many for years for late general archery. It was shut down to permit only. Hunters adjusted. Entiat was open for late general archery for years. It was shut down to permit only. Hunters adjusted. Mule deer went from any buck to 3pt or better. Hunters adjusted.
Whitetail went to 4pt min in 2 units, hunters cried like little babies and wdfw caved.
Post by: buglebrush on February 25, 2016, 07:23:18 AM
Post by: jackelope on February 25, 2016, 08:05:30 AM
Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure. Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho. Problem solved. Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement! :bash:
This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.
Post by: Gringo31 on February 25, 2016, 08:18:46 AM
In reading some of the mule deer plan. It seems much of it is to start a new way of gaining data. My gut says that until that data is collected, they will change nothing. Not saying I disagree.....
People needs to think or be able to answer what the carrying capacity is. Without that, there is no way to determine the success of current population. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoueshunter on February 25, 2016, 08:38:21 AM
Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure. Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho. Problem solved. Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement! :bash:
This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.
:yeah: Unfortunately a wide open free for all is just not in the cards between our limited mule deer habitat and the number of people that live here. They have mule deer in every corner of their State, and we have 4x the population.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on February 25, 2016, 08:38:34 AM
If the primary goals are maintaining general seasons and having increased buck escapement, I would propose ending mule deer hunting - both special permit and late season - before the rut. Divide up the hunting between all the user groups in September and October, and leave the deer alone to breed and winter. Mule deer are far more vulnerable to harvest during the breeding season than either blacktails or whitetails; if you want to hunt the rut, those are the two that should receive the bulk of the pressure. Even a small number of hunters during the rut can eliminate a large portion of the biggest bucks in any given herd - even if they are hunting with "primitive weapons".
I'm a pragmatist though - as long as we continue to have opportunities to hunt vulnerable, rut-dumb mule deer bucks in open country, with our chained up 4x4s, snowmobiles, insane optics, rangefinders and thousand yard rifles (or 200 yard frontstuffers, or 100 yard bows) - I'll be applying or hunting the late general season with all the rest. Even put in for a multiseason tag for the first time this year.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 25, 2016, 08:53:29 AM
Post by: Kittman on February 25, 2016, 08:54:49 AM
Post by: buglebrush on February 25, 2016, 09:10:20 AM
Longer seasons are by far the best way to decrease pressure. Spread it out over 7 weeks plus 6 weeks of archery like Idaho. Problem solved. Please don't fall for Washingtons money grabbing mismanagement! :bash:
This would be a great way to go if we want to create a slaughter. I'm not a fan of this at all.
:yeah: Unfortunately a wide open free for all is just not in the cards between our limited mule deer habitat and the number of people that live here. They have mule deer in every corner of their State, and we have 4x the population.
90% of hunters will still only hunt the same amount of days. It's not like we can get 13 weeks off work. What changes is my 7 days of hunting are much less likely to coincide with your 7 days. Trust me it works. Shorten the mule deer portion of you want to.
And as has been mentioned many times this state refuses to aggressively manage predators. This is the single biggest problem yet so many Washington hunters give wdfw a pass on it! :bash:
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 25, 2016, 10:15:41 PM
With respect to hunting and hunting pressure, hunters have a far reaching effect on wildlife populations when unregulated. For the majority of western states, muley hunting is by draw only. Each of these limited quota, draw only states recognized that herds were struggling. A few states limit solely because they don't have much habitat and as such, smaller herds. But Arizona, Utah, & New Mexico produce some world class muleys. I most likely will never get the chance to hunt monsters on the Kaibab or the Paunsagaunt. Yet I can't help but be proud that somewhere, people have made it possible for bucks to reach maturity. Genetics play a huge roll too.
Not every 190" buck is dominant. By placing an antler point restriction greater than 2 point, a greater number of lesser antler quality but more tenacious bucks end up breeding the majority of does. Inevitably antler point restrictions remove the multi-point, desirable genes sought by hunters. Being replaced by the passing of genes from cull bucks we can't take.
Of all predators, our effect can be damaging. However, we can apply the effort to reverse the trend. A cougar, wolf, coyote, Lynx, near, or eagle cannot.
Post by: fishnfur on February 26, 2016, 12:05:01 AM
The role of the WDFW is to manage wildlife in the state. Hunting is a tool (and a huge revenue generator) to do that. The WDFW's responsibility is more than managing hunting and fishing. There is a reason the department is not called the Department of Hunting and Fishing and Trapping.
The decisions the WDFW make should be based on science and to the benefit of all wildlife species and the environment as a whole, not just to benefit the game animals. Part of managing game animals is managing the predator population. The science will show what the optimum numbers of different species are, but science cannot predict wildfires, harsh winters, and other impacts to the populations. I can't say that the WDFW is managing all these things to the maximum benefit, but there is a lot more to managing wildlife than maximizing the number of deer and elk in the state.
Now, while science should be a significant factor in determining how the WDFW manages all the species, and hunting is one of the tools in their toolbox to manage the numbers, there are a lot of other things that the department considers, and a lot of them are political and non-science based. Not only that, but with the state, actually getting the scientific data is a nightmare, with years of planning, budgeting, proposals, approvals, you name it, it's all preventing the state from managing in a flexible and responsive way. To get the science which says what is most beneficial (permit vs. general season) is a cluster in and of itself (thanks to the bureaucracy of government).
We are hunters, and we want abundant, quality wildlife, in areas we can hunt without a lot of other hunters around, and we want liberal seasons with no predators competing for our game and no west side hunters on the east side and all kinds of conflicting things, we as a bunch are only ONE of many parties the WDFD must consider in creating a holistic policy for all Washington Wildlife.
20 years ago in Pennsylvania, there were HUGE numbers of deer. Everyone hunted and bagged game. Most of what they were bagging were spikes and small antlerless deer. It was not a healthy herd. The Game Commission started reducing the herd to improve the health of the herd by upping the antlerless harvests, and instituted a 3 point minimum for bucks. Hunters were outraged and many quit hunting because the plan was to "kill all the deer with all these doe permits". However, the state had to manage wildlife in a way that was healthy for the environment, which included the forests, which was a huge resource for the state and it's citizens. Part of managing the forests was managing the deer population, which did major damage to young trees. It was not about making the hunters happy, but managing all the wildlife in the state for all concerned parties. After a few lean years, the quality of deer went up, the number of hunters went down, and those of us that waited it out had much better, less crowded hunting. It may not have been the best thing that there were less people hunting (and less hunters voting), but it made those of us who worked hard hunting deer pretty happy, and the timber companies and the state were happy as well.
I'm just throwing this out because it seems like folks feel like the WDFW is "The Department of Hunting and Fishing" and that hunters are the only stakeholder. There are a lot more things they must consider than hunters desire for trophy bucks, LOTS of deer, and few hunters in their spot on opening day. While all these concerns are valid, there are many reasons (legit and not so legit, science based and political) why what we want as hunters isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not we hunt by permit or general seasons only. There are also a lot of conflicting things we want as individuals within a the group, and conflicting things we want as a group as a whole. Just think about "we need more hunters", "we want more deer", and "we want less people hunting where we are hunting". That's conflict in what we want. (Yes, I know, not everyone wants these things).
Re-read it. He hit the nail on the head. Remember when Mom told you "you can't please everybody"? Mom understood many things we never gave her credit for. WDFW also cannot please everybody either - stop expecting them to.
I've never hunted on the east side - but I am considering it this year. I would not support the OPs original suggestion. ( I doubt business owners on the east side would either). I like knowing that I can take a short trip, hunt new territory and different animals and not have to pay out-of-state license fees to do it. My mid-week three or four day hunting trip to the dry side isn't going to have any significant impact on the population of Mule deer or WTs or someone else's enjoyment of their hunting season.
Human encroachment into Muley habitat, and all the negatives that go along with humans living and recreating out there are primarily responsible for the decline of the Mule Deer, and we should expect that it will only worsen in the future as human populations continue to grow. Limiting hunter access through specific hunting permits will not improve the herd in the long term. It will increase numbers for awhile, but predators populations will respond in an upward trend, car strikes will be more frequent, and severe weather will kill more animals than occurs now.
:twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 26, 2016, 07:18:58 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 26, 2016, 07:48:38 AM
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 26, 2016, 08:09:16 AM
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 26, 2016, 08:16:32 AM
Post by: fishnfur on February 26, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/mule_deer/
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 26, 2016, 09:16:41 PM
Post by: The Gobble-stopper on February 26, 2016, 11:51:01 PM
Post by: jackelope on February 27, 2016, 09:02:53 AM
I am not sure where the problem is. I have been deer hunting in Wa for 44 years. Havnt had trouble finding places to hunt with no one around. Nor finding deer. Maybe I just do the right homework and get lucky? :dunno:
I'm pretty sure most of the guys posting in this thread don't have any issues finding and killing deer. I think they're looking more for something different.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 27, 2016, 11:39:52 AM
I'm gonna get one, one of these seasons :chuckle:I am not sure where the problem is. I have been deer hunting in Wa for 44 years. Havnt had trouble finding places to hunt with no one around. Nor finding deer. Maybe I just do the right homework and get lucky? :dunno:
I'm pretty sure most of the guys posting in this thread don't have any issues finding and killing deer. I think they're looking more for something different.
But seriously, Josh is right. Most are wanting a more viable, healthy, and stable mule deer population so in 50 years, we still have mule deer to hunt. More importantly our children and grandchildren have mule deer to hunt.
Post by: Wacenturion on February 27, 2016, 08:00:21 PM
The only reference to habitat enhancement is....
"By 2027, within each MDMZ maintain or improve the quality of at least 10% of the important seasonal habitats". Eleven years from now? How are they going to do that, as WDFGW doesn't put efforts on the ground that are actually necessary to actually impact wildlife in a positive way. They have no equipment nor manpower dedicated to such a task. On wildlife areas, manpower and equipment, what there is of it, is for custodial purposes at best.. Habitat restoration is a big job, and doesn't get done by simply stating it in a plan. When 2017 gets here, you'll read something to the effect....was not able to complete this objective as inflation, urban encroachment, predation, unseasonably cold winters, whatever excuse is handy will be used to tell the public why it didn't happen.
Finally...the spending priorities. Most of that funding will get eaten by administation fees, some of which will be new additional reseach to come up with a rewrite of the above.
Statewide Mule Deer Management Objectives
By 2021, develop new or refine existing survey designs for each of the seven MDMZs to estimate population levels or trends, pre- and/or post-hunt age and sex ratios, and/or spring fawn to adult ratios
Within each MDMZ, manage mule deer to ensure stable or increasing populations, as indicated by demographic indicators
Adaptively manage (Stankey et al. 2005) to attempt to maintain the current level of mule deer hunting opportunity throughout the seven management zones
By 2027, within each MDMZ maintain or improve the quality of at least 10% of the important seasonal habitats that support mule deer populations
Maintain or reduce the number of damage prevention permits or kill permits issued to minimize commercial crop damage caused by deer in MDMZs over the period 2016 – 2021
By 2020, have long-term solutions or plans in place for at least three local communities dealing with urban mule deer populations causing nuisance or damage issues
By 2018, increase the number of times mule deer are profiled in public outreach and engagement efforts to at least four per year
Establish and promote public use of at least two mule deer viewing opportunity sites with informational kiosks by 2021
Raise public awareness about deer-vehicle collisions by hosting a town hall type meeting in each MDMZ by 2023, discussing the selected problem areas described above
Achieve 90% compliance of regulations during mule deer hunting season by 2018
Prevent illegal take of mule deer outside of the hunting season and illegal commercialization of mule deer parts from increasing above the current level
Increase funding for mule deer management and research by 10% by 2022
Integrate mule deer into the planned, multi-species predator-prey study by 2017
Spending Priorities
Achieving spending levels will be contingent upon availability of funds and creation of partnerships. Department spending priorities for managing mule deer should focus on the following:
Activity Priority Future Costs
Population Monitoring High $175,000
Habitat Management High $720,000
Public Education/Outreach Medium $10,000
Post by: DaveMonti on February 27, 2016, 08:12:48 PM
Post by: BGLEMIN on February 27, 2016, 09:28:06 PM