Post by: Bob33 on July 23, 2018, 08:42:14 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 23, 2018, 08:44:59 AM
http://huntplanner.us/
Post by: X-Force on July 23, 2018, 08:54:27 AM
Post by: Timberstalker on July 23, 2018, 08:57:34 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 23, 2018, 09:01:27 AM
Post by: X-Force on July 23, 2018, 09:03:24 AM
Post by: rtspring on July 23, 2018, 09:10:49 AM
Just stating facts..
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 23, 2018, 09:16:38 AM
Hunter reports are very misleading, If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...
Just stating facts..
That's likely across the board though. So let's just say it's 20% under-reported. That means that pretty much everything is likely 20% low.... So you can still argue that the patterns are relevant regardless of the hard numbers.
Post by: rtspring on July 23, 2018, 09:26:15 AM
Hunter reports are very misleading, If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...
Just stating facts..
That's likely across the board though. So let's just say it's 20% under-reported. That means that pretty much everything is likely 20% low.... So you can still argue that the patterns are relevant regardless of the hard numbers.
True, give or take
Post by: Jpmiller on July 23, 2018, 09:44:48 AM
Hunter reports are very misleading, If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...
Just stating facts..
I 100% agree the reports aren't accurate but I don't understand why you would want to incorrectly report? What's the gain?
Post by: 92xj on July 23, 2018, 10:06:14 AM
People misreport for all sorts of reasons, they might think reporting a kill could add up to over harvest numbers and wdfw taking tags away from the unit the next year, etc.
(Removed insult)
Post by: X-Force on July 23, 2018, 10:28:35 AM
Hunter reports are very misleading, If you believe everyone reports correctly on a harvest or not I got some ocean front property to sell ya in Arizona...
Just stating facts..
I can see people who are not successful fibbing on there reports but people who are successful could get hit hard by fibbing.
I don't see the point in not telling the truth on these reports.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 23, 2018, 10:43:33 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 23, 2018, 11:27:12 AM
I do think they are trying to make it as fair for all groups as possible. Sometimes they get it wrong. Hind sight/seeing the stats afterwards is always 20/20.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 23, 2018, 11:52:50 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 23, 2018, 12:11:19 PM
Hey Super Mod why is everything on a downward slide?Are you asking me? This is the second reference to "super mod" I have seen today but the first time I have seen it right after one of my posts.
So if it is directed at me can you be more specific because looking at both charts in this thread I don't see that "everything" is on the downhill slide.
Post by: Oh Mah on July 23, 2018, 12:18:13 PM
Why the super mod and wheres the down hill slide it is consistently up and down with a peak in 2015-16.
1 could argue better reporting by hunters that care and maybe even better managing of the game. :peep:
Post by: jackelope on July 23, 2018, 12:26:51 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 23, 2018, 12:30:27 PM
Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages. It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.
Post by: Jpmiller on July 23, 2018, 02:06:19 PM
Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages. It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.
I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 23, 2018, 02:16:42 PM
Well, Conservation NW does have an agent on the commission so the ending hunting part isn't really much of a reach. A previous commissioner (Jennings) was anti hunting and anti fishing, too.
Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages. It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.
I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations :dunno: :chuckle:
Post by: Rainier10 on July 23, 2018, 03:13:50 PM
:chuckle:
Back on topic I will say there are a ton variables that affect harvest numbers and hunter success percentages. It is only my opinion but based on commission meetings I have gone to, town hall meetings with the WDFW, master hunter meetings, hunter education meetings and private email dialogue that I have participated in I really do think that for the most part our WDFW employees are doing the best that they can as far as managing wildlife and people.
I was led to believe wdfw was trying to end all hunting and wild game populations :dunno: :chuckle:
In all seriousness you can juggle or just interpret the numbers to reflect whatever you want them to. I am a half full kind of guy so I see it as they are trying. I also think that without their efforts we would be in a whole lot more dire shape than we are now.
Post by: Bob33 on July 23, 2018, 04:21:37 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 23, 2018, 05:09:00 PM
I am surprised that the overall harvest rates have been flat or slightly increasing. There are fewer hunters which could result in less competition and improved odds. Better technology and information may also play a part in that.Maybe the increase in antlerless opportunities in deer areas or in the form of special permits can be keeping harvest levels near flat. I hear of fewer animals taken in the mountains and hills, but more and more in the lowlands and backyards.
Post by: Bob33 on July 23, 2018, 05:24:35 PM
That could be although special permits wouldn't be included; these are general season numbers only.I am surprised that the overall harvest rates have been flat or slightly increasing. There are fewer hunters which could result in less competition and improved odds. Better technology and information may also play a part in that.Maybe the increase in antlerless opportunities in deer areas or in the form of special permits can be keeping harvest levels near flat. I hear of fewer animals taken in the mountains and hills, but more and more in the lowlands and backyards.
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2018, 05:59:13 PM
General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Post by: Bob33 on July 23, 2018, 06:16:33 PM
(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2018, 06:27:14 PM
(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.
Post by: idahohuntr on July 23, 2018, 07:03:26 PM
My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order. The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago. When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! :chuckle:(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.
Post by: Dan-o on July 23, 2018, 08:00:26 PM
Very insightful.
:tup:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 23, 2018, 08:21:15 PM
I was trying to connect the point on your graph with the implementation of tree farm permits (on the bigger farms).My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order. The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago. When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! :chuckle:(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.
Post by: bearpaw on July 23, 2018, 09:12:57 PM
I was trying to connect the point on your graph with the implementation of tree farm permits (on the bigger farms).My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order. The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago. When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! :chuckle:(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.
:yeah: I think reduced access explains it...
Post by: huntnphool on July 23, 2018, 09:16:21 PM
My apologies...I didn't intend to put data in reverse order. The thing that surprises me most is that the last 2 years there have been about 30,000 fewer deer hunters than 10 or 15 years ago. When I look around opening day I would struggle to figure out where another 30,000 people would fit in ! :chuckle:(His chart is reversed; it goes from 2017 on the left to 1997 on the right.)General season harvest stats, 1997-2017
That's an interesting graph for a few reasons.
1. Everything says hunter numbers are going down, but that graph says hunter numbers went up?
2. 1996 was a very hard winter so the graph starts right after a huge deer die off, so it appears numbers increased.
3. Nature has the biggest effect on deer numbers and success, the dips are after tough winters.
Looks like my eyesight took a dip! LOL, you are right, I knew we lost some deer the previous 2016 winter, I didn't realize success statewide was down that much. Kinda seems ironic tough winter in 96 and again in 2016.
The season was longer and didn't concentrate all of them into the same week. ;)
Post by: jackelope on July 23, 2018, 10:42:27 PM
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 05:23:25 AM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on July 24, 2018, 05:32:10 AM
Post by: bobcat on July 24, 2018, 05:42:17 AM
What this graph shows is that 10% of hunters kill 90% of the animals harvested. That’s held true for a long time.
I don't see how you can get that out of the data provided. To me it shows that on average, a hunter kills a deer about once every 4 to 5 years.
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 06:26:28 AM
Post by: jackelope on July 24, 2018, 10:29:57 AM
And those 10% hunt private property?
Lots of hunters in Washington hunt private ground. Timber companies, etc. It is what it is. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Post by: Rainier10 on July 24, 2018, 10:48:26 AM
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 11:41:25 AM
Post by: X-Force on July 24, 2018, 12:33:38 PM
What I was trying to point out was that even with decreasing hunter numbers the harvest will stay similar because those 10% that harvest the majority of critters are still hunting.
Why would that be?
You would have to assume that the 10% of hunters who are successful are continuing to hunt and that only the people who cant kill anything are the ones dropping out.
Harvest stay reactively steady across the board because game managers look at carrying capacity, habitat, herd population and they want X number of animals harvested a year.
Harvest of Cougars hasn't gone down since California outlawed hunting it has stayed relatively the same because game managers need cougar numbers down to reduce conflict (predation permits, government hunters, etc.)
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on July 24, 2018, 01:41:06 PM
The best way that they can control population is through special permits. Fluctuations in the number of antlerless tags given out. Increase tags when they need to thin the herd and decrease tags when the herd is at or below objective levels.
There is actually a long list of adjustments that they have made over the years so I won't name them all but they do it and they do it regularly.
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 01:59:37 PM
Post by: X-Force on July 24, 2018, 02:03:00 PM
shifting units from permit only to OTC
adding or eliminating late season hunting
adding or reducing antlerless harvest
Just this year WDFW cut antlerless moose harvest way back by eliminating antlerless tags and eliminating the any moose and making it bull only. WDFW also wanted to eliminate OTC archery antlerless elk hunting in the colockum, hunters complained and now we have a split season.
If you don't see managers doing something its because you don't care to look.
Predators are an issue but encroachment on habitat and forestry practices are the number one issue.
Its hard to have good forestry practices when logging has the threat of lawsuits and other practices (controlled burns, invasive species eradication, habitat restoration, etc.) are in the same budge as wild land fire suppression.
For habitat to improve a different budge/revenue stream will need to be found to deal with fire related issues.
Post by: Rainier10 on July 24, 2018, 02:08:41 PM
You’re correct I forgot the addition of the couple days at the end of general season for most east side hunts. To me that would suggest they felt the population was doing well which from what I’ve seen from 30 years or so of experience in some of the areas isn’t true. A lot of areas have seen drastic reductions in deer numbers but that’s just what I’ve noticed not anything scientific.I hear ya on that. I often question what they do and why they do it. They are pretty open about it if asked. Do I agree with the explanation or reasoning? Not always but at least I know what they were basing their decision on.
I went to one of the town hall meetings in Federal Way years ago. Dave Ware was there and a guy took a petition to him about elk hunting in a certain gmu and how he wanted the season changed and he had hundreds of signatures agreeing with his position. Dave listened intently, asked a few questions and then asked if he could have a copy of the signatures and petition. The guy said no problem and gave him the copy. He then assured Dave that they were real signatures. Dave said he didn't doubt that at all. He said he was just going to take a random sampling of the names, punch them into the WDFW system and make sure that they had purchased a hunting license and specifically an elk tag in the past. No point in changing a season for people that don't even hunt. He was really looking out for us as hunters was my impression. I know Dave Ware gets a bad wrap on here but that is one example that I saw personally that made me think they do have the hunter's interest in mind when making decisions.
FYI the guy started stumbling on his words and said well these are people that live in the area so they know best even if they don't hunt. Pretty sure Dave was spot on with his thought of verifying who was on that petition.
Post by: meatwhack on July 24, 2018, 02:14:45 PM