Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 01:04:20 PM
Any elk special permit tags for people who are dead set on hunting spikes .
End multi season tags.
Get rid of categories, combine points into a elk draw. All elk points zero whether you draw a cow tag or rut rifle tag.
Limit it too 2 choices and only in your unit.
Still select your weapon.
Borrowing from Idaho split state into regions by herd. You must declare region and only apply for permits in that region
Example split western Washington into 5 regions.
St Helen's
Twin harbors
Puget sound
Olympic peninsula
Nooksack
.........twin harbors would be south of hwy 8 and west of I-5
Olympic peninsula would be everything north of hwy 8.
Eastern WA -
Yakima
Clockum
Blues
North east
Mt Adams
Run general seasons statewide same time.
For example-
Rifle first Saturday in November for 10 days all regions
Muzzy first Saturday in October for 9 days all regions
Archery Saturday following Labor Day for 15 days all regions
This just seems to make more sense in my head to simplify things and spread people out by locking them into an area but more room then just one gmu.
Post by: Magnum_Willys on March 27, 2017, 01:09:08 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on March 27, 2017, 01:12:38 PM
Gotta love Idaho!!!!!!!! :IBCOOL:
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 01:16:02 PM
Any change has to equal more $ for wdfw by definition. Reducing draw categories probably doesn't do that ?What if we made apps $25 instead of $7
Post by: Buzz2401 on March 27, 2017, 01:28:41 PM
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 01:36:51 PM
I personally like the system we have. There are way more bigger bulls now then there used to be. Would I like to see less pressure, of course, but that's not going to happen with out going to a 100% draw system. Would I like to be able to hunt the east side more often for branched antler bulls sure but then the quality would go down and the average size of bulls would go down. Does it suck having to hunt the unit you want to only for spikes sure.I guess my theory on that is if you don't kill the spikes they grow to maturity and become big bulls. :dunno:
If it became permit only, only the rich would be able to afford it and I side with opportunity every time .
I'm 31 and since my parents didn't put me in for tags when I was a kid, I can't expect a reasonable chance at ever drawing a blues tag in my lifetime . There are many people who never hunted until adulthood.Kids being born today will never catch the point creep in their lives. The permit system is faulty and a detriment to hunting as a whole in my eyes.
Post by: Buzz2401 on March 27, 2017, 01:40:12 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on March 27, 2017, 01:41:45 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on March 27, 2017, 01:45:35 PM
Post by: Reidus on March 27, 2017, 01:46:00 PM
I like the idea of going back to just 1 elk category. Give me a better chance of drawing a bull tag and give the guys that just want a cow tag a better chance of drawing.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 27, 2017, 01:46:11 PM
Quote
I can't expect a reasonable chance at ever drawing a blues tag in my lifetime . There are many people who never hunted until adulthood.Kids being born today will never catch the point creep in their lives. The permit system is faulty and a detriment to hunting as a whole in my eyes.
Coming up with a system that allows everyone a "reasonable chance" is impossible. If you jack up the prices, then "everyone" no longer had that chance. I don't think a change is the answer. If you want to kill a good bull in general season, do your work and figure out how to catch one of the big bulls within a few miles west of the PCT :twocents:
Or just keep putting in....."so you're saying there's a chance"
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 01:47:15 PM
I agree but there are tons of other great tags besides the clockums and blues. Success rate would jump for first two years then fall right back to where it is now and the overall quality would drop. Your system is almost to the tee what we used to have before 1996 I believe was the year.
If I remember correctly antler restrictions were absent from the years prior to 1996. I think the real big difference would be the regions. If you want to put in for the blues you have to hunt the blues. Not get skunked in the drawing and then come back to the clockum.
I think it would greatly increase draw odds for those who wanted to chase trophy elk . Offer more rut hunts. And weed out people who apply in everything because they can.
I don't think overall it would hurt the mature bull elk population but maybe not see them next to the road.
I keep coming back in my mind that the success rates switching to branch antler bulls would be a bit higher or the same if you stopped shooting yearlings.
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 01:53:25 PM
QuoteI can't expect a reasonable chance at ever drawing a blues tag in my lifetime . There are many people who never hunted until adulthood.Kids being born today will never catch the point creep in their lives. The permit system is faulty and a detriment to hunting as a whole in my eyes.
Coming up with a system that allows everyone a "reasonable chance" is impossible. If you jack up the prices, then "everyone" no longer had that chance. I don't think a change is the answer. If you want to kill a good bull in general season, do your work and figure out how to catch one of the big bulls within a few miles west of the PCT :twocents:
Or just keep putting in....."so you're saying there's a chance"
Honestly it possible to give everyone a chance. Eliminate points, you eliminate the points creep.
For the record I've never hunted or applied for the east side . Been pretty content killing raghorns on the wet side .
I just see the whole east side as a carrot the state keeps suckering people into chasing. I'd like to see the resource used to help hunter recruitment and open up opportunities, instead of them using it to leverage money from dissatisfied customers.
Post by: Gringo31 on March 27, 2017, 02:02:25 PM
I don't think the east side wants the elk quality to be reduced to west side numbers. I'd leave it be.
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 02:08:14 PM
There are many guys who just want one good bull in their lives.
The concern is with point creep many people with go their whole life without drawing that tag. It's on a trend to become an oil tag.
I don't think the east side wants the elk quality to be reduced to west side numbers. I'd leave it be.
I haven't looked so this is just a guess but I'd venture that Washington has more elk west of the pct than east.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 27, 2017, 02:26:13 PM
I'd also like to see doing away with drawing for "permits" and shift to drawing for "tags" meaning if you draw a tag that is your season. If you draw a colockum bull tag that's all you get to hunt (can't hunt general season also).
Good ideas here, not that I think WA elk hunting is really all that broken)
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 02:41:26 PM
Talked with a biologist who was nice enough to answer a pile of questions I had.
I was right about the population St. Helens and willapa hills alone have more elk then all of eastern Washington that's not counting rainier, Olympic peninsula, or the nooksack.
Found out true spike in the clockum is because with the spike only rules no bull elk were living to maturity with spike only.
Mature bulls shorten the rut so the cows drop calves closer together .
3pt min is out for the east side .
Still like the rest of the plan.
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 02:44:01 PM
I'd also like to see doing away with drawing for "permits" and shift to drawing for "tags" meaning if you draw a tag that is your season. If you draw a colockum bull tag that's all you get to hunt (can't hunt general season also).
Good ideas here, not that I think WA elk hunting is really all that broken)
I like this idea. So if you draw a special permit you're out of the general hunt? I could get behind that one.
Post by: Bob33 on March 27, 2017, 02:51:41 PM
Well I killed my own argument, :bash: just called Wdfw to find out which side has more elk.By my math, you are correct.
Talked with a biologist who was nice enough to answer a pile of questions I had.
I was right about the population St. Helens and willapa hills alone have more elk then all of eastern Washington that's not counting rainier, Olympic peninsula, or the nooksack.
Found out true spike in the clockum is because with the spike only rules no bull elk were living to maturity with spike only.
Mature bulls shorten the rut so the cows drop calves closer together .
3pt min is out for the east side .
Still like the rest of the plan.
https://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/studyGuide/Elk-in-Washington/20105001_700046864/
Post by: emac on March 27, 2017, 03:07:13 PM
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: coachcw on March 27, 2017, 04:49:31 PM
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 04:54:04 PM
we should go permit only so our tribal brothers will have move trophy bulls to harvest ! :chuckle:It'd be a lot funnier if so many people weren't pushing for that very thing . :'(
Post by: jstone on March 27, 2017, 05:46:35 PM
Post by: kentrek on March 27, 2017, 06:00:57 PM
we should go permit only so our tribal brothers will have move trophy bulls to harvest ! :chuckle:It'd be a lot funnier if so many people weren't pushing for that very thing . :'(
They say let's copy Utah ! They have it figured out ! Then later that month they start a thread asking where to go hunting in Idaho...... :bash:
Post by: floatinghat on March 27, 2017, 08:24:07 PM
So you could hunt any GMU in the region?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on March 27, 2017, 08:28:20 PM
yep. It would make people think about what permit they apply for. Not sure how it would work with the 638 permit category's we currently have tho. :tung:
I'd also like to see doing away with drawing for "permits" and shift to drawing for "tags" meaning if you draw a tag that is your season. If you draw a colockum bull tag that's all you get to hunt (can't hunt general season also).
Good ideas here, not that I think WA elk hunting is really all that broken)
I like this idea. So if you draw a special permit you're out of the general hunt? I could get behind that one.
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 08:44:59 PM
So you could hunt any GMU in the region?
yes all units in that region.
Post by: lhrbull on March 27, 2017, 08:52:01 PM
Post by: Curly on March 27, 2017, 08:53:11 PM
Post by: chester on March 27, 2017, 08:55:15 PM
permit only for any bull elk in your region of choice weapon of your choiceWhy do you think permit only would be beneficial to hunting in Washington as a whole?
Post by: High Climber on March 27, 2017, 09:27:56 PM
Post by: rsarkks on March 29, 2017, 10:22:47 AM
At one point the WDFW attempted a spike only restriction around Mt St Helens (90's timeframe) which lasted only one year. Here is a note from the 2001 Mt St Helens Elk Heard Plan:
"In an effort to meet WDFW bull elk survivorship objectives, several any-bull units
(GMUs 505, 516, 520, 550, and 560) were managed under a spike-only, branched
bull by permit harvesting strategy beginning in 1997. The 3-point GMUs (558 and
572) remained 3-pt minimum. Also in 1997, the general firearm season was
shortened from 12 to 9 days. The move to spike-only and the reduction in season
length were designed to determine if bull escapement could be increased. Public
sentiment resulted in the abolishment of spike-only regulations after 1 year. The
spike-only units were changed to 3-pt minimum units thereafter. "
Post by: riflehunter on March 30, 2017, 08:13:08 AM
Post by: Roperfive88 on March 31, 2017, 12:03:43 PM
not enough elk for all the hunters if it wasn't permit for brach bulls the elk herd wouldn't hold up. It's a lottery to have a chance to get a big bull. The herds in the blues can't handle a free for all on branch bulls. Where I elk hunt my camp killed one bull before spike only. We have taken 12 spikes since spike only and we see tons of branch bulls. Elk aren't in the number to be hunted like deer.I personally like the system we have. There are way more bigger bulls now then there used to be. Would I like to see less pressure, of course, but that's not going to happen with out going to a 100% draw system. Would I like to be able to hunt the east side more often for branched antler bulls sure but then the quality would go down and the average size of bulls would go down. Does it suck having to hunt the unit you want to only for spikes sure.I guess my theory on that is if you don't kill the spikes they grow to maturity and become big bulls. :dunno:
If it became permit only, only the rich would be able to afford it and I side with opportunity every time .
I'm 31 and since my parents didn't put me in for tags when I was a kid, I can't expect a reasonable chance at ever drawing a blues tag in my lifetime . There are many people who never hunted until adulthood.Kids being born today will never catch the point creep in their lives. The permit system is faulty and a detriment to hunting as a whole in my eyes.
Post by: Odell on April 02, 2017, 04:32:07 AM
The main thing I would like to see changed in this states hunting program is much better predator control. But until we get the people to get rid of the law banning hounds for cougars, and until we change our current wolf management plan nothing is going to change
Between predators, poachers and tribal take there isn't much that can be done to improve elk hunting in a state this size.
Post by: cryder on April 02, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on April 03, 2017, 08:30:49 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on April 03, 2017, 09:32:50 AM
For the past two years they have decided that the herd is over capacity and have given out a ton of cow tags.
Why didn't they try to work out a deal with the tribes to stop bull harvest in the winter? If they asked the tribes to change their harvest from bulls to cows only in the winter months they would accomplish two things. They would lower the number of cows and increase the number of bulls.
I believe the theory behind the bull only harvest in the winter is to not take out the baby factory.
This would of course reduce the number of cow tags but should increase the bull to cow ratio and promote better herd health. It might also mean more bull tags in the future or at least get rid of the "true spike" thing and make it "spike only".
Seems like it would at least be worth having a conversation about.
Post by: scoutdog346 on April 30, 2017, 06:41:49 PM
Post by: Roperfive88 on April 30, 2017, 08:09:09 PM
I don't see WA as having an issue with point creep... There is no units that took say 10 points last year that will take more than 10 this year. Everyone has a chance, albeit slim, to draw any tag in the state. Guys every year are drawing quality tags with minimal points. The only change I wouldn't mind seeing is a percentage of the special permits going to the highest point holder 25% maybe, But then we would have point creep :chuckle: I also like Idahos system much better, but WA is too invested in the point system to look back now IMO
There is no point creep in Washington because we do not have a prefrence point system. All our points do is give more chaces at a low number. Someone drew a blues bull tag with one point last year. Its a lottery there are not enough elk for everyone to get a big bull. To many hunters not enough elk. Even with a draw only system its not increaseing anyones odds at a big bull. Just look at the blues units in oregon.
Post by: Bullkllr on April 30, 2017, 09:49:06 PM
I realize it's not a way to "fix" any situation with elk. But it does seem like it might make sense to give people who have been putting in for special permits for years at least better odds of getting selected.
What I mean is all points are now squared. After say 10 years they could be cubed (or something like that). :dunno:
Post by: winshooter88 on May 01, 2017, 12:55:01 AM
The WDFW is in a position where to survive it's own lack of management it has to make the most money every year that it can on license and tag sales so the idea of going to an all draw season isn't really something they are interested in, they would much rather sell over the counter tags and multiple permit applications so they make the most money that they can. Bear in mind this is not the folks with boots on the ground in WDFW, but the management in Olympia.
The other thing that I haven't seen discussed much is the fact that the population of people in this state is growing rapidly, the last time I heard we have roughly 97 people per square mile in Washington and Idaho is like 19 people per square mile while Montana is more like 13 people per square mile. both Idaho and Montana have much more space for wildlife than Washington does which is part of the reason they have more wildlife and better seasons, up their population to match ours and see how their hunting is then.
The simple fact is that there isn't any easy solution for what is going on with wildlife in our state, more predator control would help some but in reality it still wouldn't be enough to overcome all the problems that the hunting public feels we have in this state. Just my opinion.
Post by: King Krok on May 01, 2017, 01:27:45 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Curly on May 01, 2017, 01:36:33 PM
:twocents:
Post by: Rainier10 on May 01, 2017, 01:55:52 PM
Post by: bobcat on May 01, 2017, 02:09:24 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 01, 2017, 02:51:06 PM
Post by: Jpmiller on May 01, 2017, 06:24:00 PM
We don't and probably can't have elk herds like the Rocky mountain states because we don't have the same habitat and winter range as they do.
Elk hunting is not a sure thing and no matter how limited entry you make it drawing a tag might give you a chance at less pressured elk but they still won't be running up to your truck bugling their heads off. Being a Washington resident doesn't make you entitled to an elk and buying a tag doesn't either.
Given the cards we have been dealt I think we have it pretty good. Sure it can be better but I really don't see how reducing hunting opportunities makes any sense. Has giving ground ever worked before?
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 01, 2017, 07:25:24 PM
Anyone ever thought of using a higher "multiplier" for points once a certain threshold is reached?
I realize it's not a way to "fix" any situation with elk. But it does seem like it might make sense to give people who have been putting in for special permits for years at least better odds of getting selected.
What I mean is all points are now squared. After say 10 years they could be cubed (or something like that). :dunno:
This was proposed the last time they tried to change the system in response to a convoluted mess that the state proposed in order to help people with high points draw tags.
Next year they are planning on making "major changes" as it will be the 3 year rule making session and there will not be any budgetary restrictions on state rule making. I'm curious as to what they are planning as they had a pretty large reduction in permits this year and if they continue next year who knows what we will be left with.
Post by: idahohuntr on May 01, 2017, 08:54:01 PM
:yike:Anyone ever thought of using a higher "multiplier" for points once a certain threshold is reached?
I realize it's not a way to "fix" any situation with elk. But it does seem like it might make sense to give people who have been putting in for special permits for years at least better odds of getting selected.
What I mean is all points are now squared. After say 10 years they could be cubed (or something like that). :dunno:
This was proposed the last time they tried to change the system in response to a convoluted mess that the state proposed in order to help people with high points draw tags.
Next year they are planning on making "major changes" as it will be the 3 year rule making session and there will not be any budgetary restrictions on state rule making. I'm curious as to what they are planning as they had a pretty large reduction in permits this year and if they continue next year who knows what we will be left with.
The solution to Ponzi schemes is not to double down...but I can see the State doing just that to keep $ flowing :chuckle:
Post by: Roperfive88 on May 02, 2017, 07:40:45 AM
I believe one thing would help if they took for example a unit that has 15tags out of those 15tags give 10 to the applicant that has 15 or more points and the rest to the applicants that have less then 15. And once u draw one of those tags u have to wait like 2-5yrs before u can apply for said hunt again. U can still collect points, just can't apply for that unit until you've waited. There are a lot of applicants that draw those tags with 2-8 pts, and a guy like myself that has 20 can't seem to draw. Other states have a preference point system where u draw after you have a certain amount of points. I realize it's a random draw, but this carrot the WDFW is holding out for the points isn't working. Just my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They do that the new hunters will never make it to the top til they are too old to hunt. For example a unit I put in for has 14 tags and 1400 apply assuming no one leaves the pool unless they draw or joins after putting in for something else thats 100 years for a new hunter to draw. Lets say with people leaving the pool it takes 50 years to draw for a new hunter and they start applying at 8 they wont draw til 58 and 70 if you start at 20. People need to quit thinking about themselves and relize the math is what it is multipliers and preferences just make it harder for the mass and easier for the few. What happens when there are over 1000 peole with 15 points move it to 25 for those who still cant draw. If you multiply on one side of the equation (hunters) and don't on the other side (the elk) things are not going to be even. I have 15 pts and if the highest points got tags it would still take over 10 years to draw.
Post by: King Krok on May 02, 2017, 04:00:30 PM
Im already there, I'm 50 now and can't draw!!! But u are right about people with so many points they aren't drawing. I was just thinking if u cleared out some of the applicants that have a *censored* ton of points? If u look at the average now, I'm over the average by quite a few. I know a few people that have said this, but I'm to the point of taking my money elsewhere now. I've been at this game in this state for 40yrs and it's gotten worse every year. Just my 2cents, so take it for what it's worth. Everyone has an opinion and they're like *censored*s. Everyone has one and generally they stink.I believe one thing would help if they took for example a unit that has 15tags out of those 15tags give 10 to the applicant that has 15 or more points and the rest to the applicants that have less then 15. And once u draw one of those tags u have to wait like 2-5yrs before u can apply for said hunt again. U can still collect points, just can't apply for that unit until you've waited. There are a lot of applicants that draw those tags with 2-8 pts, and a guy like myself that has 20 can't seem to draw. Other states have a preference point system where u draw after you have a certain amount of points. I realize it's a random draw, but this carrot the WDFW is holding out for the points isn't working. Just my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They do that the new hunters will never make it to the top til they are too old to hunt. For example a unit I put in for has 14 tags and 1400 apply assuming no one leaves the pool unless they draw or joins after putting in for something else thats 100 years for a new hunter to draw. Lets say with people leaving the pool it takes 50 years to draw for a new hunter and they start applying at 8 they wont draw til 58 and 70 if you start at 20. People need to quit thinking about themselves and relize the math is what it is multipliers and preferences just make it harder for the mass and easier for the few. What happens when there are over 1000 peole with 15 points move it to 25 for those who still cant draw. If you multiply on one side of the equation (hunters) and don't on the other side (the elk) things are not going to be even. I have 15 pts and if the highest points got tags it would still take over 10 years to draw.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: King Krok on May 02, 2017, 04:03:51 PM
I don't see WA as having an issue with point creep... There is no units that took say 10 points last year that will take more than 10 this year. Everyone has a chance, albeit slim, to draw any tag in the state. Guys every year are drawing quality tags with minimal points. The only change I wouldn't mind seeing is a percentage of the special permits going to the highest point holder 25% maybe, But then we would have point creep :chuckle: I also like Idahos system much better, but WA is too invested in the point system to look back now IMOI couldn't agree more with you. I kind of started the same thing. Some people are worried about the new hunters and trying to get them in, I get that. But that being said. It's like a job or career, u start at the bottom and work ur way up. U can't just start at the top?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bobcat on May 02, 2017, 05:02:44 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on May 02, 2017, 05:43:34 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on May 02, 2017, 05:45:43 PM
But everybody will not draw in a liftetime. It's impossible to make the system in such a way that everyone will eventually draw. They just won't. Too many applicants and not enough tags. It's like with the lottery. Just being a loyal player and buying your tickets every week doesn't guarantee you'll win the jackpot eventually. You most likely never will. The fact that you've been buying lottery tickets for 20 years does not give you any better odds than the guy who bought his first ticket today. And it shouldn't.:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Roperfive88 on May 02, 2017, 09:06:51 PM
:yeah:But everybody will not draw in a liftetime. It's impossible to make the system in such a way that everyone will eventually draw. They just won't. Too many applicants and not enough tags. It's like with the lottery. Just being a loyal player and buying your tickets every week doesn't guarantee you'll win the jackpot eventually. You most likely never will. The fact that you've been buying lottery tickets for 20 years does not give you any better odds than the guy who bought his first ticket today. And it shouldn't.:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Curly on May 02, 2017, 09:36:49 PM
:yeah::yeah:But everybody will not draw in a liftetime. It's impossible to make the system in such a way that everyone will eventually draw. They just won't. Too many applicants and not enough tags. It's like with the lottery. Just being a loyal player and buying your tickets every week doesn't guarantee you'll win the jackpot eventually. You most likely never will. The fact that you've been buying lottery tickets for 20 years does not give you any better odds than the guy who bought his first ticket today. And it shouldn't.:yeah: :yeah:
Post by: Stein on May 02, 2017, 10:23:50 PM
Think of it like this, if you buy 10 powerball tickets, you get a better chance (on paper) than some guy who buys one ticket. Look at the draw results and see the huge number of people with the most points that get an invitation to the loser's lounge.
Post by: X-Force on May 03, 2017, 06:29:15 AM
But everybody will not draw in a liftetime. It's impossible to make the system in such a way that everyone will eventually draw. They just won't. Too many applicants and not enough tags. It's like winning the lottery. Just being a loyal player and buying your tickets every week doesn't guarantee you'll win the jackpot eventually. You most likely never will. The fact that you've been buying lottery tickets for 20 years does not give you any better odds than the guy who bought his first ticket today. And it shouldn't.
I agree with you, my problem with the system is that it doesn't require any discretion. We have great general season hunts with deer, elk and bear so every year people have no excuse to get out in the woods. Discretion would be having to choose a permit species: elk or deer or moose or sheep or goat. Having to make that decision would allow people a greater opportunity to draw the permit that means most to them. A person could draw second or antlerless deer every year instead of waiting 4 or 6 or 8 years to draw. 1 species permitting would also allow people to have greater opportunities at drawing different species off their bucket list because there would be limited people applying for permits across the board. Points make sense but having so many species and categories doesn't for the limited amount of permits available.
WDFW wouldn't do a single species or Idaho style because the cost per permit would have to be $30-50 for per elk and deer and oil would have to be $75-120 to keep revenues constant from today.
Post by: Roperfive88 on May 03, 2017, 07:24:16 AM
Yep, WA has creep but it is just hidden a bit better due to the sheer number of people.
Think of it like this, if you buy 10 powerball tickets, you get a better chance (on paper) than some guy who buys one ticket. Look at the draw results and see the huge number of people with the most points that get an invitation to the loser's lounge.
Points creep has to do with the preference point system and the amount of points needed to guarantee you draw. For example a buddies father in law in Oregon has been one be hind that guaranteed number for ten years now. Points creep is the creep of that guaranteed number. The percentages every one talks about are such a small difference from point to point that we really are not that much advantage. when there are so many people applying for tags. Is 2% chance of drawing really that much better then 1% its still a long shot. If it was Idaho system your still looking at a 1% chase of drawing most premier permits across the board. Like bobcat said its a lottery and there are not enough elk for every one to draw in a life time.
Post by: Stein on May 03, 2017, 07:40:37 AM
Yep, WA has creep but it is just hidden a bit better due to the sheer number of people.
Think of it like this, if you buy 10 powerball tickets, you get a better chance (on paper) than some guy who buys one ticket. Look at the draw results and see the huge number of people with the most points that get an invitation to the loser's lounge.
Points creep has to do with the preference point system and the amount of points needed to guarantee you draw. For example a buddies father in law in Oregon has been one be hind that guaranteed number for ten years now. Points creep is the creep of that guaranteed number. The percentages every one talks about are such a small difference from point to point that we really are not that much advantage. when there are so many people applying for tags. Is 2% chance of drawing really that much better then 1% its still a long shot. If it was Idaho system your still looking at a 1% chase of drawing most premier permits across the board. Like bobcat said its a lottery and there are not enough elk for every one to draw in a life time.
Agreed, there are various definitions of point creep depending on the state. In WA, you aren't guaranteed anything, so point creep is the number of points the average person had that drew the tag. In all states, the problem is that those with the most points don't all get tags and thus they have one more point next year, and one more the year after. Thus, those with fewer points will always have fewer points.
We should all treat it as what it is, a lottery that a few lucky people will win. For some reason, we think that we will all get one sometime, and that just isn't the case. Hunt the general tag and be surprised if you draw something else, but don't expect it.
Post by: bobcat on May 03, 2017, 07:53:09 AM
It's an impossible question to answer. But I think many people do believe that once you get to a certain number of points, you WILL draw. But that's just not the case.
I will say, as I've often said before, I think we should have waiting periods for those who do draw. Just like Idaho has. I think it's only one year. I think we should have a two year waiting period at least for the quality hunts.
Post by: bighorn1 on May 03, 2017, 08:21:12 AM
Post by: Jpmiller on May 03, 2017, 08:49:36 AM
Post by: ian_padron on May 03, 2017, 08:41:15 PM
I agree but there are tons of other great tags besides the clockums and blues. Success rate would jump for first two years then fall right back to where it is now and the overall quality would drop. Your system is almost to the tee what we used to have before 1996 I believe was the year.
If I remember correctly antler restrictions were absent from the years prior to 1996. I think the real big difference would be the regions. If you want to put in for the blues you have to hunt the blues. Not get skunked in the drawing and then come back to the clockum.
I think it would greatly increase draw odds for those who wanted to chase trophy elk . Offer more rut hunts. And weed out people who apply in everything because they can.
I don't think overall it would hurt the mature bull elk population but maybe not see them next to the road.
I keep coming back in my mind that the success rates switching to branch antler bulls would be a bit higher or the same if you stopped shooting yearlings.
I agree with choosing a region and having to hunt it.
I also think that all wilderness areas should be their own separate "region" and open for rifle hunting. The number of outfitter drop camps should be limited to avoid the recent trend in showing up at a basin 10 miles in and seeing a tent-city full of city slickers that couldn't make their way into the backcountry without a pack train. That way, guys that are willing to put in the work and actually know where the animals are will have a better shot at drilling a bull.
No way in hell the truck and tree stand hunting twats from the Colockum, Manastash, Naneum, etc. are showing up back there haha!
Post by: Antlershed on May 03, 2017, 08:59:30 PM
What impact would it have on draw odds if we changed the way your hunt choices worked? Everyone still gets assigned their random number, but what if they only ran thru everyone's first choices, then, in the same order, ran thru everyone's second choice, and so on... what it really comes down to, is Should person A be able to draw a hunt as his 4th choice that person B has down as a first choice? Again, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea, but thought I'd toss it out.
Post by: huntnnw on May 04, 2017, 12:06:35 AM
Maybe if we did it like Idaho and payed a couple thousand to be in the drawing like they do for Moose the draw odds might be better. So maybe we should be satisfied with what we have and just hope we might get lucky.
ID residents do not pay thousands tho. ID system does improve odds dramatically . And how it should be in WA . You pick either bucks and bulls or 1 OIL specie to apply for and front your tag fee. Will never happen in money hungry WA
Post by: eliandsky on June 20, 2017, 05:44:01 PM
At least the system gives everyone a chance. And for those of you putting in for rifle tags that only have 1-2-3 tags dont complain mathematically its may or may not ever happen for you.
Or go to straight lottery like ID so its fair across the board and less to complain about.
At least the guys with 10-15-23 points do actually have a better chance.
Post by: rtspring on June 20, 2017, 05:56:50 PM
Post by: Stein on June 20, 2017, 06:14:54 PM
Maybe if we did it like Idaho and payed a couple thousand to be in the drawing like they do for Moose the draw odds might be better. So maybe we should be satisfied with what we have and just hope we might get lucky.
ID residents do not pay thousands tho. ID system does improve odds dramatically . And how it should be in WA . You pick either bucks and bulls or 1 OIL specie to apply for and front your tag fee. Will never happen in money hungry WA
WA uses the special permit application money to gain access to private land to increase hunting opportunity. It doesn't come free.
Comparing WA to ID doesn't solve much, the numbers are so different that what works there wouldn't work here.
Post by: rosscrazyelk on June 20, 2017, 08:27:41 PM
I am pretty sure you had to select West side, blues, Yakima, clockum and if you didn't draw you still had to hunt that region.
?
Anyway there is to much money in it now, it would never happen. They want quantity not quality.
Post by: bearpaw on June 20, 2017, 08:42:16 PM
- WDFW is not going to take less money, it's just not going to happen, they actually want more money
- Green groups are more and more in control of WDFW resulting in less and less predator management
- More predators need more to eat, they are not vegans, the result is fewer elk & deer
- No matter how much money you throw at WDFW it cannot result in more deer/elk if they are being eaten by predators
- No matter what system you use to distribute tags, if there are less elk/deer there has to be less hunter opportunity!
Think about it!
I will concede that fewer hunters will likely mean more older bulls, but that means less opportunity for everyone each year if you cut back bull harvest!
Post by: Nice Racks on June 20, 2017, 08:52:36 PM
Post by: Roperfive88 on June 21, 2017, 08:56:29 AM
Go the alphabet way. Everyone who has their last name that starts with an A,C,E,G,I,K,M,O, Q, S,U,W,Y gets to put in for a permit hunt on even # years, and those who don't get odd years. Everyone gets to hunt the general seeasons.
You just reduced everyone's odds. Now there are half as may tags you can draw in your lifetime.This just doubles your odds from 1% every year to 2% every other year. This is just another smoke and mirrors idea to get people to believe they have better odds but they don't. Just like points. like has been posted above tom many hunters and not enough elk.
Post by: bobcat on June 21, 2017, 09:01:44 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 21, 2017, 09:33:45 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 21, 2017, 09:44:28 AM
Post by: Miles on June 21, 2017, 10:02:22 AM
Post by: bobcat on June 21, 2017, 10:08:44 AM
Has anyone defined a problem, or is this just a "solutions looking for a problem" thread?
Yes, I think the problem is that every person who would like to kill an elk every year is not doing so. We all want to hunt elk every year and be successful. That's just not happening!
Post by: TheHunt on June 21, 2017, 10:24:22 AM
Post by: Miles on June 21, 2017, 10:48:01 AM
Has anyone defined a problem, or is this just a "solutions looking for a problem" thread?
Yes, I think the problem is that every person who would like to kill an elk every year is not doing so. We all want to hunt elk every year and be successful. That's just not happening!
Killing and hunting are two different things, as I'm sure you are aware of.
Do you realistically think 100% kill ratio is attainable for as you state " every person who would like to kill an elk"? To me, that is not realistic thinking. In fact it's not realistic in most if not all states that offer elk hunting.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 21, 2017, 07:00:41 PM
Has anyone defined a problem, or is this just a "solutions looking for a problem" thread?
Yes, I think the problem is that every person who would like to kill an elk every year is not doing so. We all want to hunt elk every year and be successful. That's just not happening!
Killing and hunting are two different things, as I'm sure you are aware of.
Do you realistically think 100% kill ratio is attainable for as you state " every person who would like to kill an elk"? To me, that is not realistic thinking. In fact it's not realistic in most if not all states that offer elk hunting.
I agree with this and don't think I really support the idea that elk hunting in Washington needs fixing but I would like to see some way of getting the east side out of the spike only restriction. I think sportsmen can affect that change through habitat improvement and predator reduction with no changes to the Wdfw system.
Post by: CarbonHunter on June 22, 2017, 07:44:32 PM
The only thing that is standing in the way of making this possible is lack of money. If sportsman were able to buy back the winter grounds and improve the summer ground habitat, all the issues could be solved. The true problem isn't the current permit setup or seasons that we have but the fact that our public lands only support a small amount of animals with the current habitat management plan.
Post by: Wacenturion on June 22, 2017, 08:46:56 PM
I personally like the system we have. There are way more bigger bulls now then there used to be. Would I like to see less pressure, of course, but that's not going to happen with out going to a 100% draw system. Would I like to be able to hunt the east side more often for branched antler bulls sure but then the quality would go down and the average size of bulls would go down. Does it suck having to hunt the unit you want to only for spikes sure. Your suggestions are almost exactly what it used to be here and it wasn't any better then.
Sorry, but had to comment. They may be way more bigger bulls now, but the majority of us will never ever have an opportunity to hunt one. So what is better? :twocents:
Post by: Wacenturion on June 22, 2017, 08:55:53 PM
Not saying this is a solution, but thought I would throw it out for discussion...
What impact would it have on draw odds if we changed the way your hunt choices worked? Everyone still gets assigned their random number, but what if they only ran thru everyone's first choices, then, in the same order, ran thru everyone's second choice, and so on... what it really comes down to, is Should person A be able to draw a hunt as his 4th choice that person B has down as a first choice? Again, I'm not even sure how I feel about the idea, but thought I'd toss it out.
Simple solution....get rid of the moronic FOUR choices.....have only one for any application. Everyone's odds for the most part get way better across the board for everything. In my opinion the stupidist thing WDFW ever did. Strictly for more revenue and less opportunity, but they made it sound sooooo good for us and the resource.
Post by: Mudman on June 22, 2017, 09:04:22 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 22, 2017, 09:13:36 PM
I kind of like the current system--OTC general with an occasional extra side of special permit; but for idea argument's sake could see it split into two systems. Like I mentioned in the other thread, instead of East/West and Bow/Muzz/Mod, could maybe pick General or Special. If you pick General, you can't apply for permits; and likewise if you pick Special, you can't hunt the general seasons. Seems like that would up draw odds and reduce crowding in general seasons. Not really favoring any changes, but would rather be able to be in the elk woods each year than have to sit out every other year or year picked by alphabet.
This is one of the best ideas I have heard Jimmy. It could work in the best interest of the herds as well, the 100 series on the east and the 500 series in the west could be OTC general and the rest of the units designated draw only. The state could make up dollars by increasing the app fee for special hunts.
Post by: Mudman on June 23, 2017, 03:19:57 PM
Post by: dhorn on June 23, 2017, 04:10:18 PM
The simple answer to any "perceived problem" can be answered by an increase in the ungulate herd. With more animals there will be more opportunities and more opportunities lead to more success. If you want more animals we will need to improve the habitat and increase the amount of land that is wildlife friendly. There is a lot of farm/range land that could be returned to winter grounds that would help to improve habitat and increase the ungulate population.
The only thing that is standing in the way of making this possible is lack of money. If sportsman were able to buy back the winter grounds and improve the summer ground habitat, all the issues could be solved. The true problem isn't the current permit setup or seasons that we have but the fact that our public lands only support a small amount of animals with the current habitat management plan.
Post by: dhorn on June 23, 2017, 04:18:49 PM
Post by: buglebrush on June 24, 2017, 07:29:27 AM
Make people pick a zone to hunt like Idaho does, and you could only draw for something in your tags zone. That would immensely help the draw odds on super tags while relieving pressure on OTC areas. Finally limit draws to a single choice, and odds would be much better!
Post by: brutus1 on June 24, 2017, 07:56:28 AM
Post by: Mudman on June 24, 2017, 08:54:24 AM
Aggressively manage predators! That is an easy solution that would show immediate improvement. Think of the difference just in calf survival!Hands down the best solution! 100% agree, this would work very well. :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Make people pick a zone to hunt like Idaho does, and you could only draw for something in your tags zone. That would immensely help the draw odds on super tags while relieving pressure on OTC areas. Finally limit draws to a single choice, and odds would be much better!
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 08:58:39 AM
Hunt by zip code. ...or pay non residents fee out of your zip code or county that you live in...
Lol. Best idea so far.
Post by: bobcat on June 24, 2017, 09:03:57 AM
Hunt by zip code. ...or pay non residents fee out of your zip code or county that you live in...
Lol. Best idea so far.
No it's not. Living close to where you hunt doesn't give a person any more rights to the animals than anyone else.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 24, 2017, 09:09:15 AM
Hunt by zip code. ...or pay non residents fee out of your zip code or county that you live in...Could go by region. If you live in Region 5 for example, then you get the 500 series GMUs.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 24, 2017, 10:11:09 AM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 24, 2017, 10:33:47 AM
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 11:25:14 AM
Would my tax dollars only go to my region as well?
Do your tax dollars go towards elk hunting right now? If you can account for all tax dollars that currently go towards elk hunting, then you can keep that amount for your elk hunting region. Sounds fair enough, right?
Post by: fireweed on June 24, 2017, 11:32:26 AM
Private timberlands return to slash burning (ban site-prep helicopter spraying)
USFS more logging with real openings in timber for elk. The USFS has too many trees that are hogging all the sunlight and shading out everything edible. I'm not talking log old growth, but focus on past logging areas.
Figure out hoof rot for real.
Predator management.
After Mt St Helens erupted the area was crawling with elk after 5 years no hunting, and tons and tons of feed. Now in the same areas, everything is grown up, and you would be lucky to find an elk.
Post by: Jpmiller on June 24, 2017, 12:34:34 PM
Would my tax dollars only go to my region as well?
Do your tax dollars go towards elk hunting right now? If you can account for all tax dollars that currently go towards elk hunting, then you can keep that amount for your elk hunting region. Sounds fair enough, right?
Does Wdfw not get state and federal tax dollars?
Post by: Miles on June 24, 2017, 03:51:02 PM
Would my tax dollars only go to my region as well?
Do your tax dollars go towards elk hunting right now? If you can account for all tax dollars that currently go towards elk hunting, then you can keep that amount for your elk hunting region. Sounds fair enough, right?
Does Wdfw not get state and federal tax dollars?
You do the research and find out what specific amount of your individual taxes go towards elk hunting. Let us know what you find out and if this CRAZY idea ever passed, I will let you keep those taxes in your region. LOL
Post by: Jpmiller on June 24, 2017, 04:21:57 PM
Would my tax dollars only go to my region as well?
Do your tax dollars go towards elk hunting right now? If you can account for all tax dollars that currently go towards elk hunting, then you can keep that amount for your elk hunting region. Sounds fair enough, right?
Does Wdfw not get state and federal tax dollars?
You do the research and find out what specific amount of your individual taxes go towards elk hunting. Let us know what you find out and if this CRAZY idea ever passed, I will let you keep those taxes in your region. LOL
I'm not speaking of my individual contribution I'm speaking of everyone in each regions contribution. I was always under the impression that I got to pay resident fees was because I paid my taxes and they went towards supporting wildlife all across the state not just in my Wdfw region.
I wouldn't be real thrilled if I had to pay non resident fees inside my own state. Although I would like the opportunity to hunt a few of the draw only units I can throw a stone at from my house.
Post by: ScottE on June 25, 2017, 04:57:17 AM
Post by: lemondog on June 25, 2017, 08:05:25 PM
Human population of wa. 7 million, id. 1.5 million, new mexico 2 million. Elk population of wa. 55-60k, id. 120k, new Mexico 70k. The only other western state with a human population close to ours is Colorado and they have 250k elk and way more elk habitat. Theres just to much demand for washingtons limited game animals.
That's it in a nut shell. Impossible to provide all the opportunity demand. Need to go to complete draw just like Nevada. The quality will be awesome and you can go with your buddy when he draws and have a ball! It seems pretty obvious too me....