Post by: bowhuntin on February 07, 2009, 04:38:13 PM
Total Hunters: 273,118
User group size:
Archery: 52,083 - 19.07%
M/F: 181,584 - 66.49%
M/L: 39,451 - 14.44%
Total Elk harvest: 36,827 - % of harvest
Archery: 7,080 - 19.23%
M/F: 23,242 - 63.11%
M/L: 6,505 - 17.66%
Deer: 2003-007
Total Hunters: 492,163
User group size:
Archery: 62,730 - 12.75%
M/F: 395,457 - 80.35%
M/L: 33,976 - 6.9%
There has been a lot of talk about the proposed season setting changes. So I thought I would post the numbers for resource allocation. When the proportions are within 3% of one another the WDFW considers the goal met. The numbers clearly show that resource allocation is working.
Total Deer harvest: 173,406 - % of harvest
Archery: 19,727 - 11.38%
M/F: 142,195 - 82.0%
M/L: 11,484 - 6.62%
Post by: dreamingbig on February 08, 2009, 03:28:15 PM
Post by: NoBark on February 08, 2009, 08:46:22 PM
The dept should be the ones giving these numbers to the WAC and not vise versa as was reported earlier.
This doesn't make sense. The question on the table at the WAC should have been how the Muzzleloaders were going to have to give a few percentages to the Modern crowd in ELK and how the Modern firearms were going to have to give a percent or two the archers for DEER...BASED ON DEPARTMENT numbers! :bash:
In fact, Deer numbers are so close, it is pretty much a draw.
Post by: bobcat on February 08, 2009, 08:51:29 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 09, 2009, 07:14:03 AM
I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.
I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.
Post by: Ray on February 09, 2009, 10:23:11 AM
Post by: NoBark on February 09, 2009, 11:27:46 AM
I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.
I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.
Actually, it MANDATES that success rates be basically equal. Here is how. If 70 % are Modern Firearms, they harvest 70% of the animals. Let's say that 19% of them are successful in order to reach the 70% take level.
Now, look at archery. 15% of the hunters buy archery tags. Therefore they get 15% of the animals. It will take longer to get them so seasons are longer, BUT, when Archers reach their R/A goal of 15%, we see that it took a 19% success rate. The same as rifle. Same with Muzzy.
It's mathematical.
X (number of animals to be harvested) divided by Y (# of Hunters) = Z (success rate)
Fill in the numbers for any of the three groups and the number of animals they are suppose to take and you will get the same 'Z' !
That is R/A. What the WAC committee is suppose to do is set the length of time each group needs to take their share.
Now, as far as Archers and Muzzleloaders restricting themselves One must remember that when the division of user groups came about, the selling point made to those who chose either archery or muzzleloader and took themselves out of the MASSES of rifle hunters, was that they would get longer seasons and have THE SAME CHANCE of harvest as anybody else.
I concur, if you are going to make people choose their weapon to reduce crowding, R/A is a very fair way of doing it.
Post by: colockumelk on February 09, 2009, 11:32:50 AM
Post by: NoBark on February 09, 2009, 05:38:31 PM
Why?
I think because they have a better timing and perhaps better GMU's overall than the Modern crowd. (just a guess, haven't researched that one).
If enough Muzzleloader guys complained aobut the length, their representatives on the WAC could propose moving their season one way or another so that hunting wasn't quite so good and it would take longer to reach quota.
Post by: bowhuntin on February 09, 2009, 06:28:03 PM
I really don't agree with the whole "resource allocation" based on weapon choice concept anyway. It seems to me that if a guy chooses to hunt with a bow or a muzzleloader, he is limiting himself and his chance of success will be less than if he were hunting with a modern firearm. They shouldn't have to adjust the season to where everybody has the same success rates. If somebody wants a better chance of killing something, he should hunt the rifle season. If he wants more of a challenge then go with muzzleloader or bow and don't expect to bring any meat home.
I think resource allocation is fair and works quite well. I don't think people that choose to hunt with a muzzleloader or archery gear believe they should have the same success rates as modern firearm. Resource allocation seeks to give enough opportunity to each user group so they take a certain percentage of game overall when compared to the user groups size. Rifle hunters take the majority as they should then archery and then muzzleloader. IMO it doesn't seek to make success rates equal for all user groups.
Actually, it MANDATES that success rates be basically equal. Here is how. If 70 % are Modern Firearms, they harvest 70% of the animals. Let's say that 19% of them are successful in order to reach the 70% take level.
Now, look at archery. 15% of the hunters buy archery tags. Therefore they get 15% of the animals. It will take longer to get them so seasons are longer, BUT, when Archers reach their R/A goal of 15%, we see that it took a 19% success rate. The same as rifle. Same with Muzzy.
It's mathematical.
X (number of animals to be harvested) divided by Y (# of Hunters) = Z (success rate)
Fill in the numbers for any of the three groups and the number of animals they are suppose to take and you will get the same 'Z' !
That is R/A. What the WAC committee is suppose to do is set the length of time each group needs to take their share.
Now, as far as Archers and Muzzleloaders restricting themselves One must remember that when the division of user groups came about, the selling point made to those who chose either archery or muzzleloader and took themselves out of the MASSES of rifle hunters, was that they would get longer seasons and have THE SAME CHANCE of harvest as anybody else.
I concur, if you are going to make people choose their weapon to reduce crowding, R/A is a very fair way of doing it.
I get what you are saying, I guess what I am saying is that if you look at the number of animals harvested for each user group and you don't factor in how many people are in each user group and just look at the number of animals harvested the modern firearm guys look as if they take the majority of animals, which they do. But when we look at percentages like you just stated we are pretty much equal when it comes to success rates. I am not sure about special permits but I would bet our success rates aren't equal for those.
Post by: RC3 on February 09, 2009, 10:15:26 PM
and hey I don't rifle hunt so I'm not just stickin up for myself.
Post by: bowhuntin on February 09, 2009, 10:50:57 PM
take a look at which group is taking the large bulls.........not rifle hunters.
and hey I don't rifle hunt so I'm not just stickin up for myself.
I find that hard to believe just because of the success rate for special permit holders for modern firearm and the number of rifle hunters. I am not sure what your weapon of choice is but if you think you have a better shot at a big bull during the archery season then pick up a bow and give it a try. You may find it isn't as easy as you think. Everyone has the choice to choose which way they like to hunt.
Is there any statistics that even show how many big bulls were taken? And what would you consider a big bull five point, six point, etc.
Post by: NoBark on February 10, 2009, 06:38:36 PM
So, here is my take. IF (big IF) the dept has the numbers that show one group is taking a significantly larger share of big animals.......That is something the WAC can deal with in negotiations. A move of a couple of days in a season can have a big impact on that kind of thing. I have no problem with that. Extra special permits may solve that issue too. These are really fairly small adjustments to the Status Quo.
R/A as it has been played out is working pretty well. I have said it before and I'll say it again. We are 20 years into R/A the days of big adjustments should be long behind us and our changes should be small especially compared to the ones proposed.
Post by: RC3 on February 10, 2009, 11:20:43 PM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 10, 2009, 11:36:52 PM
Post by: RC3 on February 11, 2009, 10:10:29 PM
Post by: Snapshot on February 12, 2009, 02:58:37 PM
But what is now clear (and what will be costing bowhunters time in the field) is the mature buck and bull harvest.
The WDFW is taking elk time away and changing elk dates because stats that show that 25% of the "mature bulls" killed are taken by bowhunters, but bowhunters only make up 19% of all hunters; so we are 6% over. The M/F take 60% of the "mature bulls" and are 66% of the total number of hunters; they are 6% percent under. So the M/F representative complained that archers are killing a disproportionate amount of 'mature' class bulls.
What the WDFW calls a "mature" bull is, in my opinion, arguable. They define a 'mature bull' as having 5 or more points on one side. So it doesn't matter if it is a raghorn three-year-old five-point or a five-year-old five-point. They are counting it as "mature".
M/F (80%) kill 87% of the mature bucks. Archers (13%) take 8% of the mature bucks.
At yesterday's meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub-committee it was confirmed that the WDFW is holding strong on their 2009-11 season proposals. The only thing we appear to have gained through yesterday's negotiation is that we will again get first crack at the Sherman GMU 101 for whitetail, but the start date will be pushed back to the 20th (instead of the 10th). I hope to get a full report in a day or so.
Post by: RC3 on February 12, 2009, 09:58:37 PM
Post by: Snapshot on February 13, 2009, 10:00:48 AM
Post by: bowhuntin on February 13, 2009, 10:41:26 AM
The Commission acknowledges that they support resource allocation. Commissioner Gutlwiler said that out loud at the Commission meeting last Friday.
But what is now clear (and what will be costing bowhunters time in the field) is the mature buck and bull harvest.
The WDFW is taking elk time away and changing elk dates because stats that show that 25% of the "mature bulls" killed are taken by bowhunters, but bowhunters only make up 19% of all hunters; so we are 6% over. The M/F take 60% of the "mature bulls" and are 66% of the total number of hunters; they are 6% percent under. So the M/F representative complained that archers are killing a disproportionate amount of 'mature' class bulls.
What the WDFW calls a "mature" bull is, in my opinion, arguable. They define a 'mature bull' as having 5 or more points on one side. So it doesn't matter if it is a raghorn three-year-old five-point or a five-year-old five-point. They are counting it as "mature".
M/F (80%) kill 87% of the mature bucks. Archers (13%) take 8% of the mature bucks.
At yesterday's meeting of the Resource Allocation Sub-committee it was confirmed that the WDFW is holding strong on their 2009-11 season proposals. The only thing we appear to have gained through yesterday's negotiation is that we will again get first crack at the Sherman GMU 101 for whitetail, but the start date will be pushed back to the 20th (instead of the 10th). I hope to get a full report in a day or so.
So if archers as a user group are taking more mature bulls, why then don't they adjust the amount of permits they give out instead of eliminating days from our season? Also, nobody can control what someone shoots, maybe rifle hunters need to be more selective in what they shoot. There are plenty of mature elk to be had. All the game department can do is give a permit to 'x' amount of hunters, the rest is left up to the discretion of the hunter of what to harvest if they have an opportunity.
Do they have data showing the harvest of mature bulls, such as how many five points archers took, six points and so on for all user groups?
Post by: bowhuntin on February 13, 2009, 10:45:55 AM
If anyone can direct me to published information that will show that my hunch about 3-year-old bulls having five points is right, please, will you do so? I have four days to gather data to prove the point. Thanks.
I did a quick google search and came up with a study by the Nevada Game Department that is similar to what you were asking for. Here is the link.
http://www.ndow.org/hunt/stats/pdf/elk_age_study02.pdf
Post by: Snapshot on February 13, 2009, 11:37:27 AM
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.
I need a copy of page 13 of Jim Zumbo's book Elk Hunting. I can view it on-line but can't print it. It says a bull in its second year (a raghorn) will have four or five points, and goes on to say that they will usually gain their sixth point in their fourth year.
Post by: NoBark on February 13, 2009, 11:58:33 AM
They can't have it both ways!
If it's good for the M/F elk hunters then it should be good for the Archery BUCK hunters
MORONS!
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 13, 2009, 11:59:39 AM
So if Archers are BEHIND in their BUCK take, Why are they taking away the Best opportunity to increase our BUCK take by doing away with all the 200 units late openings???
They can't have it both ways!
If it's good for the M/F elk hunters then it should be good for the Archery BUCK hunters
MORONS!
Exactly. The are so Fing stupid it hurts my head :bash:
Post by: bowhuntin on February 13, 2009, 01:22:55 PM
I don't know if they have data indicating how many points the bulls have that have been taken by all user groups. Is that a question that is asked on the hunter reports that we are asked to submit?
Thanks for the link; I'll check it out.
I need a copy of page 13 of Jim Zumbo's book Elk Hunting. I can view it on-line but can't print it. It says a bull in its second year (a raghorn) will have four or five points, and goes on to say that they will usually gain their sixth point in their fourth year.
It might be, I didn't fill my big bull permit this year but the questions were different than the standard report and I don't remember what they were. If it is a question they ask then they should have the data some where on there website to view I would think.
Post by: bowhuntin on February 13, 2009, 01:25:15 PM
So if Archers are BEHIND in their BUCK take, Why are they taking away the Best opportunity to increase our BUCK take by doing away with all the 200 units late openings???
They can't have it both ways!
If it's good for the M/F elk hunters then it should be good for the Archery BUCK hunters
MORONS!
The WDFW sure doesn't make much sense in their decision making.