Post by: bbarnes on March 01, 2016, 08:33:04 AM
Post by: Squidward on March 01, 2016, 08:34:36 AM
Post by: REHJWA on March 01, 2016, 08:38:21 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2016, 08:54:04 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2016, 09:33:03 AM
Only way this would be feasible would be to go to a 100% draw.
Post by: bbarnes on March 01, 2016, 09:33:38 AM
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2016, 09:36:59 AM
Like I said it would be feasible if we went to draw only elk and got rid of all OTC tags, which is what you just said.
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 09:38:38 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 09:39:29 AM
....and everyone not drawn would head for OTC hunts.
Like I said it would be feasible if we went to draw only elk and got rid of all OTC tags, which is what you just said.
Kinda like the mule deer permit only hunts that nobody likes the idea of...
Post by: bbarnes on March 01, 2016, 09:43:05 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 09:44:52 AM
Then I would suggest making the whole state, 3 point or better as well.I don't see that with deer hunting,and the whole state is open for that.
I think that would make for a slaughter on the eastside. How would that benefit the longevity of the herds? I mean..I'm all for great hunting, but we also need to consider it from a management standpoint. It's not particularly difficult to find a 3 point or better bull on the east side of the state.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2016, 09:46:24 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
E. Elk management just peeves me off and has for years. No reason why we can't have quality Elk with proper management instead of wholesale slaughter with OTC tags.
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 09:46:56 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
E. Elk management just peeves me off and has for years. No reason why we can't have quality Elk with proper management instead of wholesale slaughter with OTC tags.
:yeah:
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 09:47:59 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
E. Elk management just peeves me off and has for years. No reason why we can't have quality Elk with proper management instead of wholesale slaughter with OTC tags.
:yeah:
Odds of drawing a permit would plummet through the floor on the east side even lower than they are now.
Post by: trophyhunt on March 01, 2016, 09:50:05 AM
And, the number of applications for certain quality elk permits would go from 1,200 to 12,000. I'm used to the way it is now.It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
Post by: King Krok on March 01, 2016, 09:51:43 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
E. Elk management just peeves me off and has for years. No reason why we can't have quality Elk with proper management instead of wholesale slaughter with OTC tags.
:yeah:
Odds of drawing a permit would plummet through the floor on the east side even lower than they are now.
Totally agree. Ur chances of drawing anything on the eastside would be slim at best. People with max points can't seem to draw now, only gets worse if the state did that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2016, 09:51:55 AM
Post by: SnakeEyes on March 01, 2016, 09:53:10 AM
The Eastsiders would apply for East tags and then hunt West for branch bulls when they dont draw.
That seems like a big downside for Westside hunters.
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 10:01:02 AM
The Westsiders would apply for East tags then hunt West when they do not draw.
The Eastsiders would apply for East tags and then hunt West for branch bulls when they dont draw.
That seems like a big downside for Westside hunters.
You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Post by: KFhunter on March 01, 2016, 10:02:36 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
E. Elk management just peeves me off and has for years. No reason why we can't have quality Elk with proper management instead of wholesale slaughter with OTC tags.
:yeah:
Odds of drawing a permit would plummet through the floor on the east side even lower than they are now.
Yes that would suck killing all OTC tags and might be a step too far.
Perhaps I'd rather see further restrictions placed on the OTC tags. Archery give up any elk for any bull, muzzle loader loose a few days on the front half of the season given to archery, modern give up any bull for spike only would be some examples. That would put more large branch antlers into play for modern firearm draws and keep more cows around.
Post by: boneaddict on March 01, 2016, 10:19:52 AM
Post by: C-Money on March 01, 2016, 10:25:20 AM
Post by: emac on March 01, 2016, 11:16:19 AM
And I agree with c-money deer tag should be the same as elk pick a side East or west
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnphool on March 01, 2016, 11:24:49 AM
Oh but hell no :yike:
Only way this would be feasible would be to go to a 100% draw.
+1
Post by: huntnphool on March 01, 2016, 11:25:48 AM
....and everyone not drawn would head for OTC hunts.
Like I said it would be feasible if we went to draw only elk and got rid of all OTC tags, which is what you just said.
Kinda like the mule deer permit only hunts that nobody likes the idea of...
Don't say nobody.
Post by: theleo on March 01, 2016, 11:26:37 AM
Post by: huntnphool on March 01, 2016, 11:28:13 AM
I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.
+1
Post by: Woodchuck on March 01, 2016, 11:30:44 AM
Post by: theleo on March 01, 2016, 11:31:26 AM
Post by: runamuk on March 01, 2016, 11:35:01 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2016, 11:38:52 AM
I'd honestly like to see things more divided. Something along the lines of Idaho where you get OTC tags for zones would be nice. It'd be easier to see the numbers and figure out how to get away from people easier.
:yeah:
Post by: tonymiller7 on March 01, 2016, 11:43:08 AM
I am all for keeping it divided provided that the east side is managed by the east side. We would be killing wolves, baiting bears, and chasing cats with dogs if it wasn't for Seattle. :twocents:
:yeah: and I live on the westside! lol.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 01, 2016, 01:02:11 PM
:yeah: except maybe make species specific tags. Mule deer or whitetail or blacktail.I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.
+1
Post by: walleye1 on March 01, 2016, 01:22:59 PM
Post by: Antlershed on March 01, 2016, 01:35:20 PM
I would not support that idea. I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.I'm not so sure the result would be that favorable though.
For instance, I apply for a mule deer late tag, and when I don't draw (the last 15 years), I have stayed over here and hunted blacktail. If we had to choose sides for deer, I would go east side, apply for my mule deer tag, and if I didn't draw I would come over and hunt mule deer. I feel there may be a lot of others like me as well.. :dunno:
Post by: Reidus on March 01, 2016, 01:36:54 PM
I personally wouldn't have a problem doing away with the spike seasons and giving out more branched bull tags.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 01, 2016, 01:48:43 PM
The E vs W does split it up some. I never minded it when living up there. You want to really see screwed up try applying for rifle tags and not drawing, and then buying an OTC archery tag.
Post by: zike on March 01, 2016, 05:27:06 PM
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 05:51:01 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
Eastside towns' economies will take a huge hit with no hunting season moneys from out of town hunters.
:twocents:
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2016, 06:25:33 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
Eastside towns' economies will take a huge hit with no hunting season moneys from out of town hunters.
:twocents:
As an East Side retail business owner I am willing to take the hit :IBCOOL:
Post by: jackelope on March 01, 2016, 06:26:48 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
Eastside towns' economies will take a huge hit with no hunting season moneys from out of town hunters.
:twocents:
As an East Side retail business owner I am willing to take the hit :IBCOOL:
Do you own a restaurant or a gas station or a sporting good store?
Post by: dscubame on March 01, 2016, 06:44:04 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 01, 2016, 06:58:27 PM
Divide more like ID.:yeah: but only allow for permit apps in the area you selected. :tup:
Post by: kentrek on March 01, 2016, 07:07:16 PM
Divide more like ID.
:yeah:
Manage the actual herds
Post by: buglebrush on March 01, 2016, 07:11:29 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
Eastside towns' economies will take a huge hit with no hunting season moneys from out of town hunters.
:twocents:
As an East Side retail business owner I am willing to take the hit :IBCOOL:
Do you own a restaurant or a gas station or a sporting good store?
Yes. One of those, but I get what you are saying. Just saying that to me personally lower hunting pressure would be worth it. Not really saying we should just a personal comment.
Post by: CAMPMEAT on March 01, 2016, 07:18:32 PM
Post by: Dan-o on March 01, 2016, 07:28:04 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
I suspect this wouldn't work as well for the East side as some folks think.
Fact is, tax money in this state flows west to east. That would stop.
Post by: zike on March 01, 2016, 08:01:12 PM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
I suspect this wouldn't work as well for the East side as some folks think.
Fact is, tax money in this state flows west to east. That would stop.
I always thought it went the other way, once our money went west it never came back. All that money spent on the west side, super highways, tunnels, bridges, ferries, etc.
Post by: Dan-o on March 01, 2016, 08:04:59 PM
It actually flows rather significantly East........ of course, I can't prove it without the data, can I...... :)
Post by: trophyhunt on March 01, 2016, 08:12:38 PM
Post by: Pete112288 on March 01, 2016, 08:36:52 PM
I don't know much about how ID does it as I have never hunted there or looked into it. But I have heard enough here and there that it seems like a better plan, I just cant say truly one way or the other about that.
Post by: Jimmy33 on March 01, 2016, 08:38:39 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: REHJWA on March 01, 2016, 09:45:27 PM
I think it's funny how this state has convinced a lot of people that fewer options for hunter and more money for the WDFW is a good idea....
It wasn't divided when I was growing up and we had more opportunities and for me that made for better hunting.
Now that they have us use to the system and saying "I like it how it is", or worse "lets divide it more" and take away even more opportunities and put more money into someone's squirrel, pocket gopher, meadowlark, or other non game species project....
Post by: BUTTER on March 01, 2016, 09:59:03 PM
Post by: bbarnes on March 02, 2016, 05:46:56 AM
Post by: Moose Master on March 02, 2016, 06:10:57 AM
Post by: jackelope on March 02, 2016, 07:41:12 AM
Not a idea to collect more money,as this is a more access issue.With a lot of the land in SW Washinton being FEE ACCESS,it would give hunters more areas to hunt.
If you want to hunt on private land, you either have to get permission or pay for access. If you want to hunt on land for free, then hunt public land.
While I see your point in having more land to hunt, how would it be an improvement to have all the guys in E-WA that don't draw tags coming over west to hunt branch antlered bulls on public land we have over here?
How would it be better to have the already difficult/impossible to draw eastside tags become exponentially more difficult to draw since all of the westside guys would then be able to apply for eastside permits?
Please explain how that would be an improvement??
Post by: Woodchuck on March 02, 2016, 07:54:11 AM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 02, 2016, 08:04:03 AM
With the current split it helps keep down numbers of people where I hunt, although there are still quite a few hunters. I bet a lot of east side hunters would end up coming over and hunting the west side after draw results.
I would also like to see the state split deer. If there were an east side and westside deer I think that the overall deer population would be better off. A ton of deer hunters, I can think of at least 20 from where I live just in my circle of friends, go every year to eastern wa for opening week to hunt. If they don't tag out they come back home and then hunt blacktail. Currently, there is nothing wrong with this through regulation but it increases the deer harvest. I also think it would significantly decrease hunting effort in the east side.
Post by: REHJWA on March 02, 2016, 08:49:54 AM
Kids, family requirements, work and the cost keep more people close to home to hunt weekends then people taking the season off to camp the other side of the state.
Also Not drawing a tag doesn't stop anyone from hunting spikes, so if those same spike hunters make a trip to hunt the west side reduces pressure on eastern herds. Then with more spikes making it through hunting season we get more quality tags....and then the odds would be on par for more people putting in for quality east tags....
Post by: jackelope on March 02, 2016, 09:11:42 AM
This, in and of itself, is harmless. It's all the other stuff that would happen as a result of the change like everyone in Washington applying for eastern WA quality bull permits and lots of people from the eastside coming to the westside to hunt branch antlered bulls when they don't draw a permit and don't want to hunt spikes.
Kids, family requirements, work and the cost keep more people close to home to hunt weekends then people taking the season off to camp the other side of the state.
Agree
Also Not drawing a tag doesn't stop anyone from hunting spikes, so if those same spike hunters make a trip to hunt the west side reduces pressure on eastern herds. Then with more spikes making it through hunting season we get more quality tags....and then the odds would be on par for more people putting in for quality east tags....
Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?
Post by: Maverick on March 02, 2016, 09:15:54 AM
Post by: Wetwoodshunter on March 02, 2016, 09:29:40 AM
The risk in changing the elk management is simply to high. Although realistically if we actually wanted to do the elk or deer a favor we could allow the use of dogs for hunting bear and cougar as well as baiting bears. Last season I saw more bear than blacktail in one of the units I spent 7 days in.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 02, 2016, 10:10:16 AM
Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?
I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.
What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...
Post by: jackelope on March 02, 2016, 10:12:17 AM
Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?
I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.
What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...
I agree, but with the OP promoting increased access, I can't figure out the logic in the very real potential for more overcrowding of already crowded public lands all in the name of increased access.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 02, 2016, 10:15:16 AM
Post by: hoof rot on March 02, 2016, 10:17:31 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 02, 2016, 11:28:53 AM
If we are only talking about hunting pressure the single best way to reduce that is to lengthen seasons. Period. Just across the border in Idaho for deer you have September to bowhunt October 10- November 30 with a rifle and then a December bow season. This spreads the pressure and crowding out like crazy. It doesn't greatly impact the harvest statistics, but gives everyone a much much better experience. When you cram all the hunters into two weekends you will always feel like it is a zoo. Basically people have only a certain amount of time off work, etc... to hunt and when you have 10-13 weekends to pick from it sure lowers the odds that someone else picked the same time and spot to hunt. What we need is longer seasons, and make people commit to A zone like Idaho does.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 02, 2016, 12:33:14 PM
Washington Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-wa.pdf
Idaho Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf
Post by: runamuk on March 02, 2016, 12:44:37 PM
Here's some numbers to compare, albeit 2011. But gives great perspective.
Washington Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-wa.pdf
Idaho Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf
Interesting Idaho has a fair bit more hunting pressure than Washington. There are a bunch of options in WA that would benefit hunting and wildlife but if it doesnt fill the state coffers its not going to be taken seriously this state only wants our money.
Post by: buglebrush on March 02, 2016, 12:47:23 PM
Here's some numbers to compare, albeit 2011. But gives great perspective.
Washington Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-wa.pdf
Idaho Hunter/Angler #s
https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/fhw11-id.pdf
Thanks for posting this! IMO it completely makes my point. More people hunt idaho every year, and even with the much longer seasons they only average 1 extra day per year in the field. Longer Seasons lower pressure. Guaranteed.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 02, 2016, 12:52:58 PM
Post by: bbarnes on March 02, 2016, 01:19:22 PM
Post by: REHJWA on March 02, 2016, 02:02:40 PM
Post by: KFhunter on March 03, 2016, 09:06:10 AM
After a couple of soaking wet years without seeing anything but devils club, vine maple, hazel nut, and black berries and the flash and crash of a critter if anything spikes on the east side look a whole lot better.... :dunno:
After a couple years of choking on smoke and dust, sweating my boys off and not seeing anything but wolf scat, dry dead poplar, dry cedar undergrowth and not even the flash and crash of a critter if anything big bulls in the damp undergrowth of western WA looks a whole lot better..... :dunno:
Post by: jackelope on March 03, 2016, 09:19:32 AM
After a couple of soaking wet years without seeing anything but devils club, vine maple, hazel nut, and black berries and the flash and crash of a critter if anything spikes on the east side look a whole lot better.... :dunno:
After a couple years of choking on smoke and dust, sweating my boys off and not seeing anything but wolf scat, dry dead poplar, dry cedar undergrowth and not even the flash and crash of a critter if anything big bulls in the damp undergrowth of western WA looks a whole lot better..... :dunno:
Grass is always greener......
Post by: REHJWA on March 03, 2016, 09:42:58 AM
After a couple of soaking wet years without seeing anything but devils club, vine maple, hazel nut, and black berries and the flash and crash of a critter if anything spikes on the east side look a whole lot better.... :dunno:
After a couple years of choking on smoke and dust, sweating my boys off and not seeing anything but wolf scat, dry dead poplar, dry cedar undergrowth and not even the flash and crash of a critter if anything big bulls in the damp undergrowth of western WA looks a whole lot better..... :dunno:
Grass is always greener......
I have done both. The choice to switch it up when one gets to you mid season would be nice :hello:
Post by: KFhunter on March 03, 2016, 05:59:16 PM
After a couple of soaking wet years without seeing anything but devils club, vine maple, hazel nut, and black berries and the flash and crash of a critter if anything spikes on the east side look a whole lot better.... :dunno:
After a couple years of choking on smoke and dust, sweating my boys off and not seeing anything but wolf scat, dry dead poplar, dry cedar undergrowth and not even the flash and crash of a critter if anything big bulls in the damp undergrowth of western WA looks a whole lot better..... :dunno:
Grass is always greener......
I have done both. The choice to switch it up when one gets to you mid season would be nice :hello:
switching year by year would be enough for me, I have a hard enough time just hunting one GMU
Post by: family hunter on March 03, 2016, 08:09:46 PM
Post by: chester on March 03, 2016, 08:22:58 PM
It's not difficult now. It would level out after a year or two when the dumb ones get weeded out. It's not hard to find a spike on the west side but I guarantee if it was spike only you'd see few of them and a ton of branch Bulls.Then I would suggest making the whole state, 3 point or better as well.I don't see that with deer hunting,and the whole state is open for that.
I think that would make for a slaughter on the eastside. How would that benefit the longevity of the herds? I mean..I'm all for great hunting, but we also need to consider it from a management standpoint. It's not particularly difficult to find a 3 point or better bull on the east side of the state.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2016, 09:26:43 AM
Post by: buglebrush on March 05, 2016, 09:43:42 AM
Leave the tags as they are but make it 3pt+ instead of spike in the eastside spike areas!
Agree with the idea, but I would say 5x or better. Some areas with excellent genetics produce 3x almost immediately. If you would go at least 5x on one side with elk you wouldn't be encouraging the ones with poor genes. :twocents:
Post by: Jimmy33 on March 05, 2016, 09:58:53 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: goldenhtr on March 05, 2016, 10:01:31 AM
I see more divide and conquer.
I think it's funny how this state has convinced a lot of people that fewer options for hunter and more money for the WDFW is a good idea....
It wasn't divided when I was growing up and we had more opportunities and for me that made for better hunting.
Now that they have us use to the system and saying "I like it how it is", or worse "lets divide it more" and take away even more opportunities and put more money into someone's squirrel, pocket gopher, meadowlark, or other non game species project....
:yeah:
Post by: Bc316 on March 05, 2016, 01:48:59 PM
Post by: Maverick on March 06, 2016, 08:31:27 AM
Hell no, keep it divided tough enough to draw tags don't need a bunch of people applying for tags.wdfw would make more money.
They wouldn't make more money. Guys on both sides of the state put in for special drawings or ghost point.
Post by: grundy53 on March 06, 2016, 09:04:15 AM
A lot of Westside elk hunters don't put in for quality elk. There aren't a lot good options. I think there would be an influx of new permit applications if they combined.Hell no, keep it divided tough enough to draw tags don't need a bunch of people applying for tags.wdfw would make more money.
They wouldn't make more money. Guys on both sides of the state put in for special drawings or ghost point.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: popeshawnpaul on March 06, 2016, 09:06:12 AM
East permits remain viable. 3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better. I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls. This isn't Wyoming...
Post by: KFhunter on March 06, 2016, 09:15:01 AM
It would kill all the quality hunts on those areas, more bulls would be taken, less cows would be covered..few off the top of my head.
Post by: kentrek on March 06, 2016, 09:25:19 AM
We look at this all the time on the GMAC. We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people. The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable. 3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better. I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls. This isn't Wyoming...
Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six by is plenty big for majority of hunters...
Post by: Bullkllr on March 06, 2016, 09:36:06 AM
Would you care to elaborate on why a 3pt minimum would be detrimental to the herd?
It would kill all the quality hunts on those areas, more bulls would be taken, less cows would be covered..few off the top of my head.
The bull:cow ratio would likely fall precipitously, which by most biological standards is the worst way to manage an elk population.
Post by: Maverick on March 06, 2016, 10:01:28 AM
And those hunter have the west side to hunt every year for those 300 inch 6x6s. The blues don't have the cover the west side has and it would be a sad slaughter if they opened it up for 3 point or better. Everyone would flood to the blues the first year for a chance at one of the big bulls.We look at this all the time on the GMAC. We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people. The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable. 3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better. I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls. This isn't Wyoming...
Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six by is plenty big for majority of hunters...
Post by: kentrek on March 06, 2016, 10:49:38 AM
And those hunter have the west side to hunt every year for those 300 inch 6x6s. The blues don't have the cover the west side has and it would be a sad slaughter if they opened it up for 3 point or better. Everyone would flood to the blues the first year for a chance at one of the big bulls.We look at this all the time on the GMAC. We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people. The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable. 3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better. I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls. This isn't Wyoming...
Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six by is plenty big for majority of hunters...
You missed the part about leving some units permit,obviously some areas are more sensitive to hunting pressure then others....that would be for the wildlife bios to decide
Sad slaughters never need to happen...they can up the hunting pressure year by year until the herd has reached a point that is once again determined healthy by the bios
Post by: Branden on March 06, 2016, 11:15:54 AM
We look at this all the time on the GMAC. We have too few elk and need to manage tons of people. The East/West distinction helps control people so there isn't overcrowding and chances for
East permits remain viable. 3 point or better on the east side would drastically change the herd, and not for the better. I remember the days when you could kill anything and there were no big bulls. This isn't Wyoming...
Only a few percent of the hunting population cares about big bulls....i could understand leaving alot of units permit only but we don't really need to have the biggest bulls in the world....a 300 inch six by is plenty big for majority of hunters...
Good luck finding that 300" six point. Look at Colorado. Way more elk yet 1 out of 20-30 bulls I see are 300"+.
I don't care if it was the blues or the Yakima area. It would be a slaughter. If they only opened a few units it would be crowded and those units would be void of elk in a few years. Then they would make it permit only again.
Regards, Branden.
Post by: Maverick on March 06, 2016, 12:54:10 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 06, 2016, 01:17:34 PM
Post by: buglebrush on March 06, 2016, 03:53:28 PM
Post by: Odell on March 06, 2016, 04:38:08 PM
Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?
I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.
What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...
Third option, if you apply for a tag you have to hunt east or west, whichever side you applied for. If you don't apply for a tag you can hunt any general season on either side. Do it for deer and elk.
Post by: KopperBuck on March 06, 2016, 04:54:49 PM
Who wants to hunt spikes when you can drive a couple hours west and hunt big bulls?
I don't think that's as big an issue as you think. Like I said before, that opportunity is available down here, and I know very few people that use it. Very few.
What would be the biggest issue and why I'd never agree to it is the draw problem. It would be like letting folks buy an OTC archery after missing out on the rifle draw...
Third option, if you apply for a tag you have to hunt east or west, whichever side you applied for. If you don't apply for a tag you can hunt any general season on either side. Do it for deer and elk.
That is interesting. Not totally unlike ID's system of application.
Post by: Maverick on March 06, 2016, 06:14:18 PM
Post by: acrocker on March 06, 2016, 06:27:24 PM
It seems to me that Idaho is waaaaaay less populated than Washington, with way less pressure overall considering the amount of elk-holding land that they have versus ours. With our hunter density I think it makes sense to keep it divided and make people choose where they want to hunt....
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 06, 2016, 06:50:00 PM
That would increase odds because people would only apply for hints they will actually hunt.
Post by: buglebrush on March 06, 2016, 06:51:31 PM
"Most areas in Idaho are any bull.... Go 5x or better. Don't fall for the WDFW's money grab of making everything permit. :yike:"
It seems to me that Idaho is waaaaaay less populated than Washington, with way less pressure overall considering the amount of elk-holding land that they have versus ours. With our hunter density I think it makes sense to keep it divided and make people choose where they want to hunt....
To be clear I'm not saying to undivide it. Was responding to the notion we shouldn't open up more permit areas to OTC. And Idaho has tens of thousands more hunters per year than Washington as has been covered here.
Post by: acrocker on March 06, 2016, 07:39:17 PM
The division of the state does help to keep the harvest numbers down by restricting where hunters can hunt. I don't think that this is done with malicious intent from WDFW, with them trying to keep us all from ..."Getting our fair share." I think it's a somewhat logical way of balancing hunting pressure vs. herd tolerance for harvest, since most people really like the OTC tag system and expect be able to hunt every year.
Obviously, Idaho has way more elk taken and a better success rate - can our herds support that kind of success? I would think if we averaged 25% harvest per year, we'd shoot ourselves out of elk pretty soon...
Post by: klickman on March 07, 2016, 10:01:53 AM
I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will... :P), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.
The division of the state does help to keep the harvest numbers down by restricting where hunters can hunt. I don't think that this is done with malicious intent from WDFW, with them trying to keep us all from ..."Getting our fair share." I think it's a somewhat logical way of balancing hunting pressure vs. herd tolerance for harvest, since most people really like the OTC tag system and expect be able to hunt every year.
Obviously, Idaho has way more elk taken and a better success rate - can our herds support that kind of success? I would think if we averaged 25% harvest per year, we'd shoot ourselves out of elk pretty soon...
Agreed. Also, Idaho has ~40,000 more elk and Idaho is ~12,000 square miles larger. That will spread guys out and help their success rates. Our management for elk seems to be working. We have good opportunity at some spectacular animals. Why change anything?
Post by: theleo on March 07, 2016, 10:31:30 AM
I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will... :P), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.One thing to keep in mind when you are comparing Idaho numbers to Washington is that in Idaho you aren't required to by a tag before you put in for draws. I know some hunters there just put in for certain hunts and if they don't draw then they don't worry about buying an elk tag. This really comes into effect with out of state rifle hunter wanting to hunt units that have no OTC general season tag. You also have to remember hunters can buy 2 OTC elk tags in many units.
The Idaho system is much different, but it's a whole lot easier to figure out than Washington.
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2016, 01:00:06 PM
I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will... :P), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.One thing to keep in mind when you are comparing Idaho numbers to Washington is that in Idaho you aren't required to by a tag before you put in for draws.
You don't have to buy a tag for deer or elk, but you are still required to purchase a license, so it will cost you $155 + the cost of the permit just to apply.
If applying for sheep, moose, or goats you have to pay for a license, permit and the tag up front.
Post by: theleo on March 07, 2016, 02:30:43 PM
You don't have to buy a tag for deer or elk, but you are still required to purchase a license, so it will cost you $155 + the cost of the permit just to apply.
If applying for sheep, moose, or goats you have to pay for a license, permit and the tag up front.
You're to use to Washington,
In Idaho you pay for your big game hunting license ($154.75), apply for any draw only tags ($14.75) then if you draw you can buy the permit if you want or buy an OTC permit if you didn't draw. To apply for a rifle tag for elk, where I hunt there I only pay the for the hunting license + application fee ($154.75+$14.75). If I do not draw the "ability" to purchase my rifle tag I can leave it at that and only be out $169.50 or I can buy an OTC general season tag for somewhere in the state. There is no weapon specification at time of application either. So my normal year for Idaho is this, buy the hunting license ($154.75), apply for my rifle tag ($14.75), don't draw the rifle tag :'(, add an archery endorsement to my hunting license ($20.00), then buy the elk tag OTC ($416.75) for the archery season ($606.25 total) :tup:.
I can apply for deer, elk, antelope, bear, and mountain lion and be out $228.50 if I don't draw any hunts I don't want to travel there for. For a non-resident applying for elk Washington you will be out the elk permit ($497.00) and the special hunt application ($110.50) if you want to hunt east of the cascades and possibly have a chance to hunt branch bulls ($607.50 total).
So if you were looking at both states from a non-resident elk hunting perspective which would you rather have? Idaho where you pay $169.50 to apply for hunts and have the ability to buy OTC tags for different weapons if you don't draw the tag you want (or not bother buying tags at all), or Washington where you will have a $607.50 that's likely to be a spike only tag?
Idaho's system (for normal big game): Buy your license, apply for hunts, evaluate what you want to do for buying tags (if you want to) once you see the draw results.
Washington's system: Buy hunting license, buy tags, buy application, if you don't draw you are committed to using the weapon you specified at the beginning in that weapons general season on the half of the state you specified.
Post by: huntnphool on March 07, 2016, 02:40:45 PM
You don't have to buy a tag for deer or elk, but you are still required to purchase a license, so it will cost you $155 + the cost of the permit just to apply.
If applying for sheep, moose, or goats you have to pay for a license, permit and the tag up front.
You're to use to Washington,
In Idaho you pay for your big game hunting license ($154.75), apply for any draw only tags ($14.75) then if you draw you can buy the permit if you want or buy an OTC permit if you didn't draw. To apply for a rifle tag for elk, where I hunt there I only pay the for the hunting license + application fee ($154.75+$14.75).
Is this not exactly what I said? :dunno:
My reply to the post was because you made it sound as though to apply you only needed to purchase a $14.75 application.........cheap.
I was simply letting people know that the actual investment is more than $150, which to a lot of people is a substantial amount of money to shell out, only to find out you did not draw the hunt you wanted. :twocents:
Post by: theleo on March 07, 2016, 04:15:07 PM
You don't have to buy a tag for deer or elk, but you are still required to purchase a license, so it will cost you $155 + the cost of the permit just to apply.
If applying for sheep, moose, or goats you have to pay for a license, permit and the tag up front.
You're to use to Washington,
In Idaho you pay for your big game hunting license ($154.75), apply for any draw only tags ($14.75) then if you draw you can buy the permit if you want or buy an OTC permit if you didn't draw. To apply for a rifle tag for elk, where I hunt there I only pay the for the hunting license + application fee ($154.75+$14.75).
Is this not exactly what I said? :dunno:
My reply to the post was because you made it sound as though to apply you only needed to purchase a $14.75 application.........cheap.
I was simply letting people know that the actual investment is more than $150, which to a lot of people is a substantial amount of money to shell out, only to find out you did not draw the hunt you wanted. :twocents:
It's $155 for a big game hunting license plus the application fee ($14.75). The way you have it worded makes it sound like you need the elk hunting permit/tag ($416.75) before you can apply, which you don't. If you're hunting out of state $14.75 isn't that much money.
My point for comparing the two states is that I don't have to pay the tag/permit fee if I don't draw the tag I want. My guess is that Washington could get more out of state guys to play the game applying for the big bull units on the east side if the guys were only out around $200 for applying to have the chance, instead of $600 like it is now.
Post by: Opportunist on March 07, 2016, 04:51:24 PM
Post by: Maverick on March 08, 2016, 08:31:45 AM
Washington state elk special permits should have no basis on my weapon choice or east/west tag. Apply for what I want, any weapon, any unit. Don't draw, purchase my OTC tag and go hunt. That is my opinion. :twocents: That's why I love hunting Oregon.That'd just make it even harder to draw an eastside tag...
Post by: JM on March 08, 2016, 12:18:11 PM
I don't want to belabor the point (But I guess I will... :P), but when I do a quick Google search, I find that in 2014 Idaho had 93,000 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 20,700 elk. Washington had 94,881 elk tags sold and had a harvest of 6,966. Just looking at those numbers, it seem that the elk hunter numbers are very similar, but the area in which to hunt in Idaho seems to be larger since it is less densely populated - I just figured that the overall pressure from a hunter per square mile was less.
The division of the state does help to keep the harvest numbers down by restricting where hunters can hunt. I don't think that this is done with malicious intent from WDFW, with them trying to keep us all from ..."Getting our fair share." I think it's a somewhat logical way of balancing hunting pressure vs. herd tolerance for harvest, since most people really like the OTC tag system and expect be able to hunt every year.
Obviously, Idaho has way more elk taken and a better success rate - can our herds support that kind of success? I would think if we averaged 25% harvest per year, we'd shoot ourselves out of elk pretty soon...
You also have to remember that your not comparing apples to apples when you look at those numbers. Most of Idaho is any bull while most of Washington is either spike or true spike only (at least the larger herds with the larger concentrations of people). So if you wanted to be more accurate you'd have to see what the percentage of huntable elk are for the herds in Washington and then use that number to see what the harvest percentage is.
I personally think that they should divide the state completely right down the PCT and you guys can keep your rain, liberals, $15/hr minimum wage and pay for your own public transportation. that's just my opinion though
Post by: REHJWA on March 08, 2016, 12:52:49 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 08, 2016, 12:58:08 PM
Mission accomplished the have divided us...now we wait and see what else we loose.....
You mean because the state is divided for different sub-species and herds of elk?
Post by: REHJWA on March 08, 2016, 01:17:42 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 08, 2016, 01:28:04 PM
Well I don't think it is unhealthy to have the discussion. Some people look at a piece of the management puzzle and say, "gee that is such a weird shape... why in the world would they make it like that?" They don't see the bigger picture and haven't ever experienced enough to see the other pieces and how, just maybe, the system makes some sense.
I'm no big advocate for our state but it's important to note that we are a very unique western state.
Post by: REHJWA on March 08, 2016, 01:37:00 PM
O.I.C.
Well I don't think it is unhealthy to have the discussion. Some people look at a piece of the management puzzle and say, "gee that is such a weird shape... why in the world would they make it like that?" They don't see the bigger picture and haven't ever experienced enough to see the other pieces and how, just maybe, the system makes some sense.
I'm no big advocate for our state but it's important to note that we are a very unique western state.
I agree that being the smallest Western state with the second largest population creates unique challenges....
Post by: buglebrush on March 08, 2016, 02:18:37 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2016, 03:03:20 PM
Post by: SnakeEyes on March 08, 2016, 03:22:04 PM
One thing I have often wondered is how many people in Washington buy an elk tag to apply, but never actually hunt if not drawn. I was talking to some guys that said that is what they do. Buy tags to apply, but basically just hunt deer half of the years. Was totally incomprehensible to me :yike: But made me wonder...?
This is what I have done for at least the last 10 years. My dad and I will usually hunt other states if we do not draw a WA tag. We started off hunting Oregon, but now will try to hunt Idaho when we can.
Post by: huntnphool on March 08, 2016, 05:09:12 PM
One thing I have often wondered is how many people in Washington buy an elk tag to apply, but never actually hunt if not drawn. I was talking to some guys that said that is what they do. Buy tags to apply, but basically just hunt deer half of the years. Was totally incomprehensible to me :yike: But made me wonder...?
:hello:
Post by: kentrek on March 08, 2016, 06:15:03 PM
So your going to plan on shooting one maybe two big bulls I'm your life ? Doesn't really seem like a recipe for success
Obviously if you can afford to put in for ten different states so you draw an upper tear tag ever year youl do alil better but I'm just talking the average guy here in Washington
Post by: JimmyHoffa on March 08, 2016, 06:24:07 PM
One thing I have often wondered is how many people in Washington buy an elk tag to apply, but never actually hunt if not drawn. I was talking to some guys that said that is what they do. Buy tags to apply, but basically just hunt deer half of the years. Was totally incomprehensible to me :yike: But made me wonder...?I know of some that buy all their tags about a week before the season, then the day before the opener will look at the weather forecast and just not go. The forecast usually always has some chance of rain for November on the coast.
Post by: SnakeEyes on March 08, 2016, 06:42:30 PM
I really don't understand the waiting till you draw a tag to hunt bulls theory.....i mean give or take on the unit, after 15 years of waiting you still only have a 5ish percent chance to draw a tag....and thats rounding up usually! Then once you get a tag you still have a typically less then 25% chance of even filling that tag ? Let alone with a big bull ??
So your going to plan on shooting one maybe two big bulls I'm your life ? Doesn't really seem like a recipe for success
Obviously if you can afford to put in for ten different states so you draw an upper tear tag ever year youl do alil better but I'm just talking the average guy here in Washington
A person can hunt OTC Idaho or Oregon every year for Archery and have some pretty nice hunting if you do not draw a Washington tag. We are not limited to spikes and it is nice to explore other areas. I grew up hunting Washington on the Wetside and then later on in life the Eastside. It is fun to learn new areas with better opportunities. I am a very average guy.
Post by: Odell on March 10, 2016, 09:21:05 AM
Odell that's not a bad idea. I always apply for tags so makes no difference to me but to jot put infor permits and have the whole state to hunt is an interesting thought.
It leaves people freedom to pursue what they really value most. It might also take some people out of quality applications and improve odds for those who really want that hunt.
Post by: ridgefire on March 11, 2016, 04:00:18 PM
Post by: MAVsled on March 24, 2016, 06:07:18 PM
WDFW needs to bite the bullet budget wise and copy AZ somewhat.
drawn tags only good for specified GMU units; You don't draw, you don't hunt.
harsh change, yes.
Better; I'd like it see move to a 100% draw on all 3 tags (spike-new, cow or any bull) for a specific unit/GMU.
You can only hunt the GMU you draw for and limit application to only one unit choice.
Post by: TheHunt on March 28, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
Downside is that when folks don't draw eastside branch antlered bull tags they'd all head west to hunt bulls rather than hunt spike bulls. There are hardly any good quality permit hunts on this side, so what would happen is everyone would apply for eastside permits and hunt the westside when they don't draw. People complain about a lack of good quality westside permits all the time. This idea would sure solve that problem, but would cause overcrowding on the westside. Just my :twocents:
Totally agree, BUT another idea would be to increase the legal bull tine numbers. One could say a certain unit is only 5X5 and above or 6X6 and above. I like that idea.
Post by: T Pearce on March 28, 2016, 08:49:24 PM
I would not support that idea. I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.:yeah:
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 28, 2016, 09:17:56 PM
I would not support that idea. I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.:yeah:
The west side might get a break though as well. Early season everyone heads east, then they shoot spikes and 2 points during the late buck hunt on the west side.
Post by: mfswallace on March 28, 2016, 09:26:41 PM
I would not support that idea. I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.:yeah:
The west side might get a break though as well. Early season everyone heads east, then they shoot spikes and 2 points during the late buck hunt on the west side.
:chuckle:
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 28, 2016, 10:02:41 PM
I would not support that idea. I would support choosing sides for deer like we do for elk..so the East side mule deer would not get hammered as hard.:yeah:
The west side might get a break though as well. Early season everyone heads east, then they shoot spikes and 2 points during the late buck hunt on the west side.
:chuckle:
:dunno: is that not true?
Post by: stewcamp on May 26, 2016, 12:02:37 PM
Post by: PolarBear on May 26, 2016, 12:12:44 PM
[/quote]
The west side might get a break though as well. Early season everyone heads east, then they shoot spikes and 2 points during the late buck hunt on the west side.
[/quote]
:yeah: So much truth to that statement! :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on May 26, 2016, 12:35:30 PM
The west side might get a break though as well. Early season everyone heads east, then they shoot spikes and 2 points during the late buck hunt on the west side.
[/quote]
:yeah: So much truth to that statement! :chuckle:
[/quote]
I'd be fine with a pick your species tag for deer. Similar things happen late whitetail season after the masses try for their Muleys General season. It could really help permit odds also if structured like the elk. :twocents:
Post by: dscubame on May 27, 2016, 07:24:21 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 27, 2016, 08:16:45 AM
It will give all of us more area to hunt, spread out hunters,and also be less pressure on the elk herds.Also you would be able to apply for tags,on both sides of the state,and no be forced to hunt that side if not drawn.This would be a big revenue increase to the WDFW,with more tags to draw for.Personally I don't see a downside to it.
For starters, it would put way more pressure on the herds unless western and eastern seasons ran concurrently. Hunters could bounce back and forth between areas as different seasons opened and closed putting more hunters in small areas. Look at Idaho, they have elk zones which encompass three units or so that you have to choose when you buy an elk tag. This allows managers the ability to open different zones at different times without fear of flooding one area with hunters.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on May 27, 2016, 08:21:04 AM
One thing I have often wondered is how many people in Washington buy an elk tag to apply, but never actually hunt if not drawn. I was talking to some guys that said that is what they do. Buy tags to apply, but basically just hunt deer half of the years. Was totally incomprehensible to me :yike: But made me wonder...?
:hello:
:tup:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 27, 2016, 08:24:05 AM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
I suspect this wouldn't work as well for the East side as some folks think.
Fact is, tax money in this state flows west to east. That would stop.
I always thought it went the other way, once our money went west it never came back. All that money spent on the west side, super highways, tunnels, bridges, ferries, etc.
Here you go.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid=6686284
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 27, 2016, 08:27:50 AM
Not a idea to collect more money,as this is a more access issue.With a lot of the land in SW Washinton being FEE ACCESS,it would give hunters more areas to hunt.
Pretty simple then if you don't want to pay the access fees. Just choose an eastern tag instead of a western one.
Post by: Rainier10 on May 27, 2016, 08:43:20 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on May 27, 2016, 09:36:26 AM
How about you live on the west side,you have to hunt and fish there too. Same for the east side. If you want to hunt the other side you pay nonresident fees. Lots of people going to ID for sure. :yeah:
I suspect this wouldn't work as well for the East side as some folks think.
Fact is, tax money in this state flows west to east. That would stop.
I always thought it went the other way, once our money went west it never came back. All that money spent on the west side, super highways, tunnels, bridges, ferries, etc.
Here you go.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/welfare-state/Content?oid=6686284
I have a LOT of questions when reading that article. I don't know what is fact, but I know that article isn't telling me everything.
Post by: PolarBear on May 27, 2016, 09:46:53 AM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on May 28, 2016, 08:35:27 PM
Anyone that is looking for credible, non biased and factual information from the Stranger is a fool!
Give us a better source that disputes this story then.
Post by: Bullkllr on May 28, 2016, 09:41:30 PM
"In the 2007 fiscal year, King County contributed just over $6 billion to the state's tax coffers, according to the state. That year it received $3.5 billion from the general fund, for an expenses to revenue ratio of 0.59. The five counties which fared the worst in terms of getting tax money back compared to monies put in were: San Juan (0.41), King, Skagit (0.75), Jefferson (0.82) and Island (0.81).
The five counties getting the biggest bang out of their tax bucks were Whitman County, which paid $52.3 million in state taxes in 2007 but got $252 million back, for a ratio of 4.82. Whitman, in the southeastern part of the state, is home to Washington State University. Next is Thurston County, home to the state capital, with an expenses to revenue ratio of 3.17, then Lincoln County (2.54), Ferry (2.40) and Garfield (2.25). Lincoln, Ferry and Garfield are all small counties in Eastern Washington.
No county in Eastern Washington pays more in state general fund taxes than it receives back in expenditures."
Post by: JimmyHoffa on May 28, 2016, 10:18:37 PM
Post by: Falcon on May 29, 2016, 08:31:16 AM
Anyone that is looking for credible, non biased and factual information from the Stranger is a fool!
:yeah:
Post by: Bullkllr on May 29, 2016, 09:05:01 AM
A lot (majority) of that General Fund is based off retail sales and B&O for each county. I think it would be better if there was a way to show more of a 'per resident' tax load/tax receipt regarding the general fund. I wonder if there would be a different outcome or if it would be the same. So, if a guy from Eastern WA rounds up the wife and the eleven kids to go to a Seahacks or Mariners game and see Seattle for the weekend, does that make the same kind of exchange as the granola eater that drives out to E Washington to hike and camp for the weekend? I understand it would be much more difficult to determine in depth breakdown. But I see that stranger article referenced from time to time to claim that 'Seattleites' are paying off the rest of the state.The Stranger article generated a lot of discussion at the time, iirc. It is a somewhat radical rag, but I can't come up with anything saying they're wrong.
Here's is a really thorough breakdown from the state. I didn't read the whole thing.
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/fiscal/expenditures_and_revenues/county_expenditures_revenues.pdf (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/fiscal/expenditures_and_revenues/county_expenditures_revenues.pdf)
Post by: mfswallace on March 20, 2018, 07:41:56 AM
I am all for keeping it divided provided that the east side is managed by the east side. We would be killing wolves, baiting bears, and chasing cats with dogs if it wasn't for Seattle. :twocents:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/19/are-some-states-headed-for-splitsville-movement-grows-to-allow-sections-states-to-break-away.amp.html
Post by: chuck270 on March 20, 2018, 02:34:05 PM
Post by: 92xj on March 20, 2018, 02:44:10 PM
Post by: BUTTER on March 20, 2018, 09:02:30 PM
Post by: Duckslayer89 on March 21, 2018, 09:42:11 AM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
I would push for predator control first. If I saw proper managment of predators I would go for a possible draw system
Post by: Jonathan_S on March 21, 2018, 09:45:38 AM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
Sure would make some people and ALL the wolves happy. Hunters pushing for a 67% decrease in annual hunting activity. Sounds like a wet dream for people with an anti hunting agenda too.
Post by: huntinguy on March 21, 2018, 11:32:13 AM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
Latest data I heard was only 4% of Washingtonians hunt. And that number is falling. Research that I have read, part of the reason is: fewer places to hunt and less time to hunt.
I don't recall the state... Michigan maybe, as an example, said hunting as we now know it will be extinct by 2050.
There needs to be something done. I am not sure restricting hunting to a permit only thing would be good.
IF there was a state wide tag, like there was when I started hunting, you only had a week.... 10 days. That meant you wouldn't hunt both sides, you as a hunter, had to pick one. I wish the game department would go back to that.
Post by: meatwhack on March 21, 2018, 01:31:45 PM
Post by: .257mag on March 21, 2018, 01:58:44 PM
Post by: SpurInSpokane on March 21, 2018, 02:23:36 PM
Latest data I heard was only 4% of Washingtonians hunt. And that number is falling. Research that I have read, part of the reason is: fewer places to hunt and less time to hunt.I just read about that stat. Probably not original source, but a good read: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation
I don't recall the state... Michigan maybe, as an example, said hunting as we now know it will be extinct by 2050.
They discuss the (Wisconsin) prediction from 1992 that there will basically be no more hunters by 2050. However, the primary reasons for their prediction were demographics (aging Boomers) mostly.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on March 21, 2018, 03:05:09 PM
Post by: baker5150 on March 21, 2018, 04:30:30 PM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
Latest data I heard was only 4% of Washingtonians hunt. And that number is falling. Research that I have read, part of the reason is: fewer places to hunt and less time to hunt.
I don't recall the state... Michigan maybe, as an example, said hunting as we now know it will be extinct by 2050.
There needs to be something done. I am not sure restricting hunting to a permit only thing would be good.
IF there was a state wide tag, like there was when I started hunting, you only had a week.... 10 days. That meant you wouldn't hunt both sides, you as a hunter, had to pick one. I wish the game department would go back to that.
2.4% of the states population were license holders in 2017
7.4 million residents and 182k license holders
https://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/subpages/licenseinfo/Natl%20Hunting%20License%20Report%202017.pdf
Post by: hughjorgan on March 21, 2018, 05:54:45 PM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
So since you think we should be permit only do you not hunt our general seasons and only hunt when you draw a permit?
It’s hard enough now to draw a permit, if they did change to permit only how would you recruit new hunters that could only hunt every so many years you drew?
Post by: BUTTER on March 21, 2018, 09:39:44 PM
Post by: Calvin Rayborn on March 22, 2018, 01:21:25 PM
Post by: 7mmfan on March 22, 2018, 02:04:12 PM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
So since you think we should be permit only do you not hunt our general seasons and only hunt when you draw a permit?
It’s hard enough now to draw a permit, if they did change to permit only how would you recruit new hunters that could only hunt every so many years you drew?
Bears, birds etc... Or do like OR and make archery the only general tag available and everything else permit only? SO you could hunt every year if you wanted, it would just be limited to archery.
Post by: WA hunter14 on March 22, 2018, 03:37:52 PM
Post by: buglebrush on March 23, 2018, 05:02:00 PM
Want to fix Washington quit allowing more hunters than elk to hunt. This state needs to go 100 percent draw for every unit. This is a fact and needs to happen now. We have become spoiled in having the opportunity to hunt everything every year. Fact is washington doesnt have the animals or the land to allow this. I am not saying every unit should be some weird 10 pt unit but why not one every three or so or some sort. We need to push this now
[/quote
Bologna! :bash: :bash: :bash:
It's this type of attitude that allows WDFW to get away with total mismanagement.
1. Serious predator reduction through common sense management. This is the First and Foremost issue. Any attempt at change that doesn't include drastic predator reduction is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon. :sry:
2. Shut down the serious Native over harvest.
3. Change many special draw only units to OTC with 6 point minimum. The areas with the most elk are Draw only and the areas with less elk are OTC. That's because WDFW doesn't manage for Hunting opportunity at all :twocents:
4. Lengthen seasons even if it means more categories. I.E. 1-18 Sept. for First Archery, 19-25 Sept. for Second Archery, 26-30 September for 1st Muzzy, 1-7 October for Second Muzzy, etc... This would aid greatly in reducing hunting pressure which increases everyone's quality of experience 100X
Post by: buglebrush on March 23, 2018, 05:03:20 PM
With the amount of lions and bears you guys have you could never have bountiful deer or elk. It doesn't matter if you make it all draw only and remove tens of thousands of people from the woods, it would only recover a small amount if any. The lions and other predators will make up for the lack of hunters.
Exactly. :bash:
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on March 24, 2018, 12:53:42 PM
I've said this many many times, but here goes again. :sry:
If we are only talking about hunting pressure the single best way to reduce that is to lengthen seasons. Period. Just across the border in Idaho for deer you have September to bowhunt October 10- November 30 with a rifle and then a December bow season. This spreads the pressure and crowding out like crazy. It doesn't greatly impact the harvest statistics, but gives everyone a much much better experience. When you cram all the hunters into two weekends you will always feel like it is a zoo. Basically people have only a certain amount of time off work, etc... to hunt and when you have 10-13 weekends to pick from it sure lowers the odds that someone else picked the same time and spot to hunt. What we need is longer seasons, and make people commit to A zone like Idaho does.
Well I've never really thought of this but I think it's a great idea. I like it and makes sense.
Post by: buglebrush on March 24, 2018, 05:14:05 PM
I've said this many many times, but here goes again. :sry:
If we are only talking about hunting pressure the single best way to reduce that is to lengthen seasons. Period. Just across the border in Idaho for deer you have September to bowhunt October 10- November 30 with a rifle and then a December bow season. This spreads the pressure and crowding out like crazy. It doesn't greatly impact the harvest statistics, but gives everyone a much much better experience. When you cram all the hunters into two weekends you will always feel like it is a zoo. Basically people have only a certain amount of time off work, etc... to hunt and when you have 10-13 weekends to pick from it sure lowers the odds that someone else picked the same time and spot to hunt. What we need is longer seasons, and make people commit to A zone like Idaho does.
Well I've never really thought of this but I think it's a great idea. I like it and makes sense.
Yes, but sadly it makes way too much sense for the chowderheads at WDFW to consider adopting it.
Post by: mdbuck5x5 on March 25, 2018, 12:15:34 PM
I've said this many many times, but here goes again. :sry:
If we are only talking about hunting pressure the single best way to reduce that is to lengthen seasons. Period. Just across the border in Idaho for deer you have September to bowhunt October 10- November 30 with a rifle and then a December bow season. This spreads the pressure and crowding out like crazy. It doesn't greatly impact the harvest statistics, but gives everyone a much much better experience. When you cram all the hunters into two weekends you will always feel like it is a zoo. Basically people have only a certain amount of time off work, etc... to hunt and when you have 10-13 weekends to pick from it sure lowers the odds that someone else picked the same time and spot to hunt. What we need is longer seasons, and make people commit to A zone like Idaho does.
Well I've never really thought of this but I think it's a great idea. I like it and makes sense.
Yes, but sadly it makes way too much sense for the chowderheads at WDFW to consider adopting it.
Yeah that's for sure I agree. Anything that actually makes sense they do the opposite.
Post by: meatwhack on March 25, 2018, 03:08:57 PM
Post by: buglebrush on March 25, 2018, 07:39:14 PM
What areas in Idaho are open from October 10th to November 30th to rifle hunt elk?
If you read my comment I specified deer as the species.
Post by: meatwhack on March 25, 2018, 08:04:01 PM