Post by: Sneaky on February 24, 2019, 10:26:30 AM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 24, 2019, 10:40:01 AM
Post by: Bango skank on February 24, 2019, 10:43:39 AM
Post by: GoldenRing270 on February 24, 2019, 10:48:21 AM
Post by: Sneaky on February 24, 2019, 10:55:41 AM
Im all for it, but i bet you would see a large increase in multi deer applicants from the west side, and a large decrease in left over multi deer permits.
I would be interested to hear back from you after this runs for a few days to see if you are still all for it! Maybe I'm wrong but we will see!
Post by: Skillet on February 24, 2019, 10:59:01 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 24, 2019, 10:59:55 AM
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Sneaky on February 24, 2019, 11:02:39 AM
It would probably depend on the year but I would probably pick West side and hunt mulies and whitetail out of state.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
thats a good point - could see an increase in out of state pressure as a result
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 24, 2019, 11:03:18 AM
Post by: luckyman on February 24, 2019, 11:40:31 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 24, 2019, 11:43:14 AM
I have said for a while now that we should choose a species. Not just east/west. :twocents:Agreed
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: HntnFsh on February 24, 2019, 11:45:34 AM
I did not vote because I'm against it, and I very rarely hunt the east side!
Post by: trophyhunt on February 24, 2019, 11:58:51 AM
I could see this putting a lot more pressure on those mulies that so many people are already saying are in a world of hurt. I see choosing east or west as a big mistake.AGREE! This is not a good idea and I hope the state doesn't consider it, it would have nothing to do about anything except MONEY!! They'd find another way to have us spend more, stupid idea in my opinion and it just not needed to help pressure or the herds. I understand why we choose sides for elk, but it's not needed for deer.
I did not vote because I'm against it, and I very rarely hunt the east side!
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 24, 2019, 12:06:05 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 24, 2019, 12:09:21 PM
I could see this putting a lot more pressure on those mulies that so many people are already saying are in a world of hurt. I see choosing east or west as a big mistake.
I did not vote because I'm against it, and I very rarely hunt the east side!
So you think people who don't already hunt mule deer would start to hunt mule deer?
Post by: grundy53 on February 24, 2019, 12:10:45 PM
I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:Exactly. I don't see how there would be even more pressure on the mulies.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 24, 2019, 12:20:34 PM
I would think that the guys that do the first week for mulies and last week for blacktails, if limited to only muleys would probably hunt it a little harder and be willing to take 'last day deer' more often. Since they wouldn't have the option to shoot a meat deer during the blacktail half, they'll shoot whatever is legal for mulies. Or maybe they'll just head out of state for mulies and keep after blacktail at home. If you've already got a big trailer/wall tent, big truck, ATVs, etc; going three or four more hours east might not be that big of a deal.I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:Exactly. I don't see how there would be even more pressure on the mulies.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 24, 2019, 12:26:12 PM
I think most guys hunting mulies in eastern Washington are already doing that. I think if anything it would send them out of state like you suggested. Which would be good for our herd. LolI would think that the guys that do the first week for mulies and last week for blacktails, if limited to only muleys would probably hunt it a little harder and be willing to take 'last day deer' more often. Since they wouldn't have the option to shoot a meat deer during the blacktail half, they'll shoot whatever is legal for mulies. Or maybe they'll just head out of state for mulies and keep after blacktail at home. If you've already got a big trailer/wall tent, big truck, ATVs, etc; going three or four more hours east might not be that big of a deal.I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:Exactly. I don't see how there would be even more pressure on the mulies.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 24, 2019, 12:30:50 PM
Post by: HoofsandWings on February 24, 2019, 01:33:26 PM
Post by: Jimmy33 on February 24, 2019, 01:37:32 PM
I have said for a while now that we should choose a species. Not just east/west. :twocents:Preach on!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Buckhunter24 on February 24, 2019, 05:58:28 PM
Post by: emac on February 24, 2019, 06:16:39 PM
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 24, 2019, 06:25:33 PM
Post by: ljsommer on February 24, 2019, 06:40:19 PM
Post by: SWHUNTER on February 24, 2019, 06:58:27 PM
I don't really care either way, but if there was going to be a change, I think that would be a good option.
Post by: hunter399 on February 24, 2019, 07:20:00 PM
How about a blacktail/whitetail tag or a muley tag?No it's not a good option .
I don't really care either way, but if there was going to be a change, I think that would be a good option.
It needs to be choose side or species, need to spread hunters out a little bit .WDFW won't do it by setting seasons same all across the state..so really choose a species would be the best route .The hunting the East side then if I don't tag out I will go home and hunt blacktail is gotta stop.I think most hunters would hate it at first but love it after a few years with reduced hunters in there favorite spots.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2019, 07:31:35 PM
I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:
Very true. With that thought, we should eliminate or reduce the multi-season tags to 100. :twocents:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 24, 2019, 07:34:07 PM
I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:
Very true. With that thought, we should eliminate or reduce the multi-season tags to 100. :twocents:
Works for me.
Post by: Bango skank on February 24, 2019, 07:36:07 PM
I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:
Very true. With that thought, we should eliminate or reduce the multi-season tags to 100. :twocents:
That would take about $120,000 from wdfw's pockets. Not gonna happen. Francine Madden might starve.
Post by: MtnMuley on February 24, 2019, 07:37:01 PM
I think It would reduce pressure across the board. Look how many guys hunt mule deer for a week then back to the west side for late oct. then whitetail late. If a guy were to choose he could t pressure all 3 in a season. :twocents:
Very true. With that thought, we should eliminate or reduce the multi-season tags to 100. :twocents:
That would take about $120,000 from wdfw's pockets. Not gonna happen. Francine Madden might starve.
Lose your logic! :chuckle:
Post by: Bango skank on February 24, 2019, 07:42:03 PM
Post by: JWEBB on February 24, 2019, 07:47:58 PM
Post by: ljsommer on February 24, 2019, 08:02:32 PM
Post by: huntnnw on February 24, 2019, 10:10:04 PM
Post by: JakeLand on February 24, 2019, 10:38:49 PM
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 25, 2019, 04:53:57 AM
Post by: 3nails on February 25, 2019, 05:48:56 AM
Post by: JakeLand on February 25, 2019, 05:56:49 AM
I'd like to see picking a county. You can buy an over the counter deer tag for the county you live in but have to apply for a limited amount of out of county tags to hunt another.i think that it would have to be more of a GMU pick on that idea
Post by: huntnnw on February 25, 2019, 06:03:39 AM
Post by: HntnFsh on February 25, 2019, 06:09:45 AM
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 25, 2019, 06:12:12 AM
Unfortunalty I dont think either option will ever be adopted. We already have to pick a weapon, some with very limited seasons, pick a side for elk, with very limited seasons, and we still have really low success rates. Why?...management.
Or you can go to Idaho, but a tag and pretty much hunt any weapon of choice, 3 months out of the year, and in some areas shoot anything that moves.
Does WA really need more rules, or just better management.
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2019, 06:51:41 AM
Quote
Does WA really need more rules, or just better management.
That's exactly what management is- rules and regulations.
Post by: fishngamereaper on February 25, 2019, 06:55:40 AM
QuoteDoes WA really need more rules, or just better management.
That's exactly what management is- rules and regulations.
Its only a part of it.
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2019, 06:58:59 AM
QuoteDoes WA really need more rules, or just better management.
That's exactly what management is- rules and regulations.
Its only a part of it.
What's the other part? I don't know of anything else they do to manage big game other than to have rules and regulations to limit the harvest to a sustainable amount.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 07:15:35 AM
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 25, 2019, 07:33:50 AM
I'd like to see picking a county. You can buy an over the counter deer tag for the county you live in but have to apply for a limited amount of out of county tags to hunt another.
That would cut down on county revenue.
Post by: Sneaky on February 25, 2019, 07:35:18 AM
I think picking is a bad idea, side, species, the odds aren't great as it is...Popular hunting areas do not suddenly become unpopular when faced with a choice...they become the only option to get outdoors! :twocents:
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 07:45:04 AM
If I had to pick I would pick East. If I had to pick species I would pick mule deer.
So I've asked this a couple of times, but is that what most hunters pick in WA? I get the sense from these forums that muley numbers are fairly wrecked right now.
Post by: E-Town Hunter on February 25, 2019, 07:54:33 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 07:55:57 AM
With me being a greedy and living in mule deer country, I would love to see west siders pay non resident fees to come across the mountains and hunt mule deer. You guys have all the money over there and we have the goods that you want. It would help keep more west siders at home hunting blacktail and increase the revenue for the state. This post might ruffle some feathers! LOL :chuckle:
As a west sider I have no problem with that.
Post by: ne kid on February 25, 2019, 07:59:52 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2019, 08:04:01 AM
Post by: cougforester on February 25, 2019, 08:07:38 AM
With me being a greedy and living in mule deer country, I would love to see west siders pay non resident fees to come across the mountains and hunt mule deer. You guys have all the money over there and we have the goods that you want. It would help keep more west siders at home hunting blacktail and increase the revenue for the state. This post might ruffle some feathers! LOL :chuckle:
Non-resident fees, no. More? Sure, buy a mule deer stamp or something like that. Then you, as an east sider, will have to buy a west side elk stamp to hunt OTC bulls. I'm not opposed to the idea, but don't forget to think of the entire picture!
Post by: vandeman17 on February 25, 2019, 08:11:51 AM
With me being a greedy and living in mule deer country, I would love to see west siders pay non resident fees to come across the mountains and hunt mule deer. You guys have all the money over there and we have the goods that you want. It would help keep more west siders at home hunting blacktail and increase the revenue for the state. This post might ruffle some feathers! LOL :chuckle:
Why complicate things? Isn't the intent of the split to try and help overall herd health? Charging more seems to go against that goal. Instead, implement having to pick a side and track tags purchased on each side and adjust if one side is heavily skewed after a certain amount of years. :twocents:
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 08:14:46 AM
Or they could just make the mule deer tag twice as expensive as the other deer tags, for EVERYBODY.
They could just make it an OIL tag the way the WDFW manages them.
Why not just make all species OIL? It'll save us tons of time stomping around outside for nothing ;)
Except predators. No bag limits on predators.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 08:18:10 AM
Say for instance you could go hunt your mule deer hunt and have a 7-10 day season mid October or if you chose blacktail you could have a 30+ day season and late season including the rut (if harvest was reduced because people chose mule deer season length could increase without a negative impact to herd health).
As for the Benchley thing the only way they could fix that would be to just have only a mule deer or blacktail season there and call them one or the other, just like they do now.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 08:20:31 AM
Another thing to keep in mind is that wdfw could give much longer seasons for blacktail if in fact less people started hunting them. Same with whitetail.
I am probably an outlier here but I'd much rather have a higher quality hunt than a much longer season that has much lower odds of success. A 14 day season with quality hunting seems far more valuable to me than 30 day spent hiking in the woods without another beating heart in a 50 mile radius.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 08:22:40 AM
If I had to pick I would pick East. If I had to pick species I would pick mule deer.
So I've asked this a couple of times, but is that what most hunters pick in WA? I get the sense from these forums that muley numbers are fairly wrecked right now.
Looking at the poll it would be interesting to see if in another poll, BT, WT or Muley what the percentages would be. Would the 2/3's that is picking eastside in your poll split again and be 1/3 BT, 1/3 WT and 1/3 Muley?
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 08:24:53 AM
In another post you are talking about getting a sense that mule deer numbers are wrecked right now. Do you expect to have a quality 14 day hunt when mule deer are wrecked?Another thing to keep in mind is that wdfw could give much longer seasons for blacktail if in fact less people started hunting them. Same with whitetail.
I am probably an outlier here but I'd much rather have a higher quality hunt than a much longer season that has much lower odds of success. A 14 day season with quality hunting seems far more valuable to me than 30 day spent hiking in the woods without another beating heart in a 50 mile radius.
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 25, 2019, 08:29:13 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 08:30:29 AM
In another post you are talking about getting a sense that mule deer numbers are wrecked right now. Do you expect to have a quality 14 day hunt when mule deer are wrecked?Another thing to keep in mind is that wdfw could give much longer seasons for blacktail if in fact less people started hunting them. Same with whitetail.
I am probably an outlier here but I'd much rather have a higher quality hunt than a much longer season that has much lower odds of success. A 14 day season with quality hunting seems far more valuable to me than 30 day spent hiking in the woods without another beating heart in a 50 mile radius.
Well the entire thread here seems to have a tone of "Let's all tighten our belts a belts a bit to help deer numbers".
I'd like to see:
1. Less hunting pressure on these species
2. Maintained or increased hunting pressure on predators
3. Herd health recovered (please note: I am taking my opinion on herd health from you folks, I've only ever "hunted" blacktail)
4. Once herd health recovers, tighter hunting restrictions to maintain a higher quality hunt
I've heard it said that Washington is an "Opportunity" state in that our seasons are long. Frankly if the animal herd population isn't there then we aren't talking about a long and robust hunting season, you're talking about a pay-to-hike opportunity in which you're required to wear orange.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 08:30:53 AM
You guys are all giving the state more ideas on ways to charge more. I like it the way it is. You want to hunt both sides, great. You want to target just one species, great. Having choices is greatHow would picking a side or species make them charge more? It would just alleviate pressure on every species or both sides of the state. :twocents:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on February 25, 2019, 08:49:15 AM
If blacktail season was the first two weeks in November, you'd probably have higher quality hunting. You kind of get a taste for it around Halloween. Kind of a reason that the blacktail general seasons aren't open in a certain timeframe and the quality buck permits become active.Another thing to keep in mind is that wdfw could give much longer seasons for blacktail if in fact less people started hunting them. Same with whitetail.
I am probably an outlier here but I'd much rather have a higher quality hunt than a much longer season that has much lower odds of success. A 14 day season with quality hunting seems far more valuable to me than 30 day spent hiking in the woods without another beating heart in a 50 mile radius.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 09:09:05 AM
Yes Washington is an opportunity state that also has the opportunity to have a quality hunt with less people on certain quality hunts. It's a great mix of both worlds in my opinion.In another post you are talking about getting a sense that mule deer numbers are wrecked right now. Do you expect to have a quality 14 day hunt when mule deer are wrecked?Another thing to keep in mind is that wdfw could give much longer seasons for blacktail if in fact less people started hunting them. Same with whitetail.
I am probably an outlier here but I'd much rather have a higher quality hunt than a much longer season that has much lower odds of success. A 14 day season with quality hunting seems far more valuable to me than 30 day spent hiking in the woods without another beating heart in a 50 mile radius.
Well the entire thread here seems to have a tone of "Let's all tighten our belts a belts a bit to help deer numbers".
I'd like to see:
1. Less hunting pressure on these species
2. Maintained or increased hunting pressure on predators
3. Herd health recovered (please note: I am taking my opinion on herd health from you folks, I've only ever "hunted" blacktail)
4. Once herd health recovers, tighter hunting restrictions to maintain a higher quality hunt
I've heard it said that Washington is an "Opportunity" state in that our seasons are long. Frankly if the animal herd population isn't there then we aren't talking about a long and robust hunting season, you're talking about a pay-to-hike opportunity in which you're required to wear orange.
If you want higher quality of animals there are hunts available out of state. If you want less people there are more options out of state. If you want less people and more animals but not high quality animals there are options out of state.
In my mind I prefer that we have all options right here in this state.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 25, 2019, 09:59:35 AM
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 10:12:16 AM
With me being a greedy and living in mule deer country, I would love to see west siders pay non resident fees to come across the mountains and hunt mule deer. You guys have all the money over there and we have the goods that you want. It would help keep more west siders at home hunting blacktail and increase the revenue for the state. This post might ruffle some feathers! LOL :chuckle:That's ridiculous. We are all residents of Washington. Those deer are mine the same as yours. There is no way they are going to charge westsiders non resident prices for a tag.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 10:13:49 AM
Hopefully this has illustrated that picking sides won't solve any crowding issues in Eastern WA. it will only force folks who might currently only make a trip or two east a year to exclusively hunt Eastern WA if they want to hunt at all. The west side is VASTLY more populated and yet more than half of folks on here have voted that they would hunt ONLY the east side thus far.Rifle season is only 11 days long for mule deer. How many trips can a westsider make in 11days?
I think picking is a bad idea, side, species, the odds aren't great as it is...Popular hunting areas do not suddenly become unpopular when faced with a choice...they become the only option to get outdoors! :twocents:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 10:18:21 AM
Cant imagine how many benchlegs would get mis-identified if tags where species specific. East/West would be much easier to create rules for.
Easy. Same as it is now. West of the Crest its a blacktail. East of the Crest its a mulie.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: D-Rock425 on February 25, 2019, 10:45:50 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 10:51:32 AM
I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 10:55:19 AM
Blacktail numbers are way down. They aren't doing great. Most people choose to hunt mulies not because blacktails are so hard to hunt. It's because mulies have bigger antlers and it doesn't rain nearly as much in eastern Washington as it does in western Washington.I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 10:57:57 AM
Blacktail numbers are way down. They aren't doing great. Most people choose to hunt mulies not because blacktails are so hard to hunt. It's because mulies have bigger antlers and it doesn't rain nearly as much in eastern Washington as it does in western Washington.I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is the first I am hearing that blacktail numbers are down. Housing development on the west side has been like a wildfire for how many years now? These neighborhoods tucked into the woods present endless amounts of edge habitat, and if they're inside of city limits then hunting is prohibited. Even if they aren't, half the state is ultra-left voters who would never let you harvest a deer on their property. I know this is anecdotal but I've literally got deer walking down the sidewalk in full daylight where I live, inside city limits.
Edit: If that's actually true, that BT numbers are down, that means that all species numbers are down? Man I gotta say, I should take some Xanax before I read these forums, they bum me out to no end.
Post by: Stein on February 25, 2019, 11:02:17 AM
That is what is needed to address the pressure issues as well as the draw nonsense. Or, WDFW could properly manage the general and permit seasons, but that doesn't look too likely.
I'm guessing that wouldn't be too popular with the vast majority of hunters though.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 11:03:30 AM
I also see 4-7+ whitetail in my neighborhood every day... that is of no indication to how the whitetail are doing anywhere else. Where I hunt deer (Gmu127) doe numbers are in the tank and fawn recruitment is terrible the last 3 years. I really can’t speak to anywhere else but where I frequent and hunt thoughBlacktail numbers are way down. They aren't doing great. Most people choose to hunt mulies not because blacktails are so hard to hunt. It's because mulies have bigger antlers and it doesn't rain nearly as much in eastern Washington as it does in western Washington.I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is the first I am hearing that blacktail numbers are down. Housing development on the west side has been like a wildfire for how many years now? These neighborhoods tucked into the woods present endless amounts of edge habitat, and if they're inside of city limits then hunting is prohibited. Even if they aren't, half the state is ultra-left voters who would never let you harvest a deer on their property. I know this is anecdotal but I've literally got deer walking down the sidewalk in full daylight where I live, inside city limits.
Edit: If that's actually true, that BT numbers are down, that means that all species numbers are down? Man I gotta say, I should take some Xanax before I read these forums, they bum me out to no end.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:15:57 AM
I also see 4-7+ whitetail in my neighborhood every day... that is of no indication to how the whitetail are doing anywhere else. Where I hunt deer (Gmu127) doe numbers are in the tank and fawn recruitment is terrible the last 3 years. I really can’t speak to anywhere else but where I frequent and hunt thoughBlacktail numbers are way down. They aren't doing great. Most people choose to hunt mulies not because blacktails are so hard to hunt. It's because mulies have bigger antlers and it doesn't rain nearly as much in eastern Washington as it does in western Washington.I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is the first I am hearing that blacktail numbers are down. Housing development on the west side has been like a wildfire for how many years now? These neighborhoods tucked into the woods present endless amounts of edge habitat, and if they're inside of city limits then hunting is prohibited. Even if they aren't, half the state is ultra-left voters who would never let you harvest a deer on their property. I know this is anecdotal but I've literally got deer walking down the sidewalk in full daylight where I live, inside city limits.
Edit: If that's actually true, that BT numbers are down, that means that all species numbers are down? Man I gotta say, I should take some Xanax before I read these forums, they bum me out to no end.
I think my previous point is still relevant though - we have a whole lot of hunters heading East to hunt, and not a whole lot heading West. I would go as far as to say "very few". That kind of suggests a need for some more intelligent planning and management.
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 11:18:10 AM
Non huntable populations of deer do not reflect the overall herd health.Blacktail numbers are way down. They aren't doing great. Most people choose to hunt mulies not because blacktails are so hard to hunt. It's because mulies have bigger antlers and it doesn't rain nearly as much in eastern Washington as it does in western Washington.I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread but I think picking west or east for deer would suck. I understand and agree with why it's it for elk but I dont see a purpose for deer.
I believe the purpose is that blacktails are horrifically difficult to hunt, and the terrain east of the mountains allows for glassing. It's my (very very junior) understanding that people head east for a better hunt experience. My understanding is that mule numbers are down, white tail numbers are down, but blacktail numbers are doing great.
IMO: Keep blacktail season wide open, restrict muley and whitetail.
Let's put it this way: How many people east of the mountains are driving West to hunt blacktails?
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is the first I am hearing that blacktail numbers are down. Housing development on the west side has been like a wildfire for how many years now? These neighborhoods tucked into the woods present endless amounts of edge habitat, and if they're inside of city limits then hunting is prohibited. Even if they aren't, half the state is ultra-left voters who would never let you harvest a deer on their property. I know this is anecdotal but I've literally got deer walking down the sidewalk in full daylight where I live, inside city limits.
Edit: If that's actually true, that BT numbers are down, that means that all species numbers are down? Man I gotta say, I should take some Xanax before I read these forums, they bum me out to no end.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 11:26:30 AM
16,930 deer came from districts 1-8 (east side)
10,075 deer came from districts 9-17 (west side)
This is general season harvest.
Sure looks like enough people hunt the west side to me.
As a side note. Districts 1,2,3 had 11,000+ deer taken. Most of which would probably be whitetail I would guess.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:30:42 AM
A bit of info from 2017 harvest stats...
16,930 deer came from districts 1-8 (east side)
10,075 deer came from districts 9-17 (west side)
This is general season harvest.
Sure looks like enough people hunt the west side to me.
As a side note. Districts 1,2,3 had 11,000+ deer taken. Most of which would probably be whitetail I would guess.
The population west of the cascades is more than three times larger than the population east of the cascades, and yet we're seeing 60% more deer harvested east of the cascades.
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 11:36:08 AM
what does that have to do with choosing east/west or species.A bit of info from 2017 harvest stats...
16,930 deer came from districts 1-8 (east side)
10,075 deer came from districts 9-17 (west side)
This is general season harvest.
Sure looks like enough people hunt the west side to me.
As a side note. Districts 1,2,3 had 11,000+ deer taken. Most of which would probably be whitetail I would guess.
The population west of the cascades is more than three times larger than the population east of the cascades, and yet we're seeing 60% more deer harvested east of the cascades.
10k blacktail killed tells me that there would always be people who choose to hunt them over going east.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 25, 2019, 11:37:00 AM
A bit of info from 2017 harvest stats...
16,930 deer came from districts 1-8 (east side)
10,075 deer came from districts 9-17 (west side)
This is general season harvest.
Sure looks like enough people hunt the west side to me.
As a side note. Districts 1,2,3 had 11,000+ deer taken. Most of which would probably be whitetail I would guess.
The population west of the cascades is more than three times larger than the population east of the cascades, and yet we're seeing 60% more deer harvested east of the cascades.
What are you really trying to say?
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2019, 11:39:02 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:39:33 AM
what does that have to do with choosing east/west or species.A bit of info from 2017 harvest stats...
16,930 deer came from districts 1-8 (east side)
10,075 deer came from districts 9-17 (west side)
This is general season harvest.
Sure looks like enough people hunt the west side to me.
As a side note. Districts 1,2,3 had 11,000+ deer taken. Most of which would probably be whitetail I would guess.
The population west of the cascades is more than three times larger than the population east of the cascades, and yet we're seeing 60% more deer harvested east of the cascades.
10k blacktail killed tells me that there would always be people who choose to hunt them over going east.
Well, the way I see it:
If we break up the choices into east/west, that allows us more fine-grained control over harvest. If you take the population of hunters and then make them choose, we can then set a limit on how many 'east side' tags that are available and make them first come first serve. Anyone who wants to hunt will still most definitely have the option to get into their trucks and drive west over the mountains to do what the blacktail hunters over here do: walk fire roads wearing orange or knock on a thousand doors hoping to find someone who didn't vote for Bernie.
Look, if you want to help muley and white tail numbers then I think a good first start is identifying just how many hunters are heading east. I think that number is gigantic, based on what I've seen here.
Edit: I don't know anything about anything so please don't get upset. Think of me as the youngest kid in the household. I have contributed nothing and I know nothing. But I do know operations and workflow and I understand that metrics matter, data matters, and fine-grained control matters when you're trying to address issues of load.
Lastly for one more reason to ignore me: these forums and my own experience have convinced me that hunting here is a dumb idea and I'll likely just hop in the truck and hunt elsewhere, regardless.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 25, 2019, 11:41:08 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 11:41:50 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:43:59 AM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 11:48:26 AM
I can really easily see why hunter in-fighting happens. There's this weird contradiction of supposedly wanting to keep the sport alive and get more people involved, but then simultaneously not wanting people to succeed because it's less for you if they do. In so many ways there's really no other sport like it.I don’t get what your point is. We can’t throw game population management out the door to recruit hunters.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:51:02 AM
I can really easily see why hunter in-fighting happens. There's this weird contradiction of supposedly wanting to keep the sport alive and get more people involved, but then simultaneously not wanting people to succeed because it's less for you if they do. In so many ways there's really no other sport like it.I don’t get what your point is. We can’t throw game population management out the door to recruit hunters.
I am actually suggesting exactly the opposite. I think it needs to be tightened way, way up. Tighten it up, but then we should also stop pretending that we're really hurting for hunters or that the sport is dying. As evidenced by these forums, we've got way too many hunters for way too little opportunity. The amount of dudes sitting on max points who have been trying to draw something every single year is pretty shocking.
Is there any disagreement here? If we all agree that herd numbers are down across the board, then we have to hunt them less. Keep up the predator hunting, but ease off the ungulates. I don't think this is controversial. Let's then just stop lying to newbies (like myself) in hunter-safety that we really want more hunters.
We don't. We want less hunters. We just want more money.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 25, 2019, 11:53:45 AM
I keep typing responses but by the time I am done, we've taken another left
As a true OTC state, the points system doesnt have any real bearing on general pressure. Although it does have it's own problems
Who is the we?
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 11:56:50 AM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 11:57:25 AM
You're kind of topic hopping Lj
I keep typing responses but by the time I am done, we've taken another left
As a true OTC state, the points system doesnt have any real bearing on general pressure. Although it does have it's own problems
Who is the we?
I don't mean to topic hop. I understand this issue as "hunting pressure". Is that accurate? If so, we're discussing ways to distribute load via more control over tags. If we tighten up tag allowances for OTC, I believe we should also change the general messaging that I've heard since before I even got involved in the sport: "We (WDFW/sportsmen) want more hunters."
We (sportsmen) don't. We (WDFW) just want money from tag sales.
Again if I have misunderstood the topic of the poll/thread, please correct me. I understand it as discussing how to address pressure on our deer herds.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on February 25, 2019, 11:59:42 AM
Post by: X-Force on February 25, 2019, 12:02:24 PM
Do away with the multi season tags.
with the review generated they will never do that.
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 25, 2019, 12:03:00 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 12:03:26 PM
:yeah:Do away with the multi season tags.
with the review generated they will never do that.
If it were my choice to make they would be gone right away
Post by: Jonathan_S on February 25, 2019, 12:05:41 PM
Post by: idahohuntr on February 25, 2019, 12:11:18 PM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 12:14:08 PM
I would go a step further than picking a side or species - I'd make all deer tags available only via a draw. Managers could set tag numbers and hunts for individual or groups of GMU's - and I would expect tag numbers to be quite liberal in some areas and seasons...more restrictive in others. I think this would vastly improve the quality of hunting in Washington - but it would come at the cost of possibly not being able to hunt every year.
I am so very on board with this. Honestly it feels like I am being sold snake oil when OTC tags are available to all with no restriction, but our herds are being crushed. Like, what exactly are you selling me here? The opportunity to go for a hike? I sure don't have to pay you money for a deer tag to go walk around in the woods.
I'd very very happily take one or even multiple years off hunting entirely if it meant the actual quality of the hunt were improved.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 25, 2019, 12:16:05 PM
Post by: BULLBLASTER on February 25, 2019, 12:17:19 PM
I would go a step further than picking a side or species - I'd make all deer tags available only via a draw. Managers could set tag numbers and hunts for individual or groups of GMU's - and I would expect tag numbers to be quite liberal in some areas and seasons...more restrictive in others. I think this would vastly improve the quality of hunting in Washington - but it would come at the cost of possibly not being able to hunt every year.I wouldn’t be against that.
Post by: greenhead_killer on February 25, 2019, 12:21:22 PM
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 12:26:30 PM
You know that you have that option, right? Apply for out of state hunting. Or move to a state that has the type of management that you are wanting.I would go a step further than picking a side or species - I'd make all deer tags available only via a draw. Managers could set tag numbers and hunts for individual or groups of GMU's - and I would expect tag numbers to be quite liberal in some areas and seasons...more restrictive in others. I think this would vastly improve the quality of hunting in Washington - but it would come at the cost of possibly not being able to hunt every year.
I am so very on board with this. Honestly it feels like I am being sold snake oil when OTC tags are available to all with no restriction, but our herds are being crushed. Like, what exactly are you selling me here? The opportunity to go for a hike? I sure don't have to pay you money for a deer tag to go walk around in the woods.
I'd very very happily take one or even multiple years off hunting entirely if it meant the actual quality of the hunt were improved.
Nobody is required to stay in this state with the OTC hunting opportunity that we have here. Anyone can move to another state and pick the one that has the management plan that you prefer.
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 12:26:55 PM
Its insanity that the state that has the least amount of public land and the smallest game deer population is the only one that has completely unbridaled otc hunting. Its insulting that there isnt some science based quotas per gmu :twocents:No kidding. Most real mule deer states have quotas and caps on licenses. But not the muledeer state with the second highest population...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 12:30:39 PM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 12:32:44 PM
Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 25, 2019, 12:36:09 PM
Post by: grundy53 on February 25, 2019, 12:39:47 PM
Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 12:39:59 PM
I guess I am not sure what the question is. I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone. If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system. There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 12:45:36 PM
Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Picking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option. That's just silliness. And I'm a mule deer freak.I totally get it. There are a ton of people up here from California. Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California. People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.
I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it. People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust. "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?" Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.
Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 12:47:03 PM
I guess I am not sure what the question is. I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone. If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system. There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.
I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?
Post by: Ghost Hunter on February 25, 2019, 12:58:06 PM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 25, 2019, 12:58:57 PM
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:05:07 PM
I didn't say or think that open season for all is what is going on. I think that they are trying to manage people, wildlife and habitat. People is the tough one and there are way more people in this state than some of the other states.I guess I am not sure what the question is. I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone. If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system. There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.
I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?
How bad does it have to get? I guess I am not sure. Do I harvest a deer every year? No. Do I harvest one 8 out of 10 years? Yes. Could I harvest one every year in the current format? Probably.
Is that dire in my mind? No.
Post by: idahohuntr on February 25, 2019, 01:07:16 PM
I don't see a connection to other states here...were talking about how to manage hunting quality in Washington.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.
Sent from my SM-G950U using TapatalkPicking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option. That's just silliness. And I'm a mule deer freak.I totally get it. There are a ton of people up here from California. Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California. People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.
I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it. People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust. "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?" Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.
Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.
Its really a quality vs quantity discussion - and I get there are folks who lean more one way vs. the other. I'd prefer higher quality experiences in Washington and I think that is best achieved by more regulated tags. Fewer hunters and lower annual harvest = when you do get a tag there are less people hunting and in many instances more and/or bigger deer to be hunted.
There are many factors that effect deer populations and they have been discussed thoroughly on this site - but managing hunter harvest is one of the easiest, surest, and quickest ways to achieve increases in deer numbers in many units.
Post by: KFhunter on February 25, 2019, 01:11:13 PM
Most new hunters go out with someone, get introduced and go a while without getting one.
Making it draw only will make that first deer too big of a step for most, yes it would be great for us already hunting and willing to submit draws, but over all the amount of hunters would decline drastically.
Its one thing to go to walmart and get a license and tag, it's something else entirely to log into a website and fumble through a draw system.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:12:15 PM
No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 01:13:45 PM
I didn't say or think that open season for all is what is going on. I think that they are trying to manage people, wildlife and habitat. People is the tough one and there are way more people in this state than some of the other states.I guess I am not sure what the question is. I think that the deer herds can recover without going to a draw system for everyone. If a draw system is what you want there are plenty of states out there with a draw system. There are a ton of hunters in this state that want OTC hunting.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.
Playing devil's advocate here, but what would it take for you to change your tune on that? How low would the herds have to go before you changed your mind?
Not being snarky/malicious, genuine curiosity.
I'll try to make it even more obvious so that you know what the question is:
You're of the mind that the deer herds can recover without drastic changes to the current system. If you're wrong, and things continue to degrade, how far would they have to degrade before you changed your mind and decided that "open season for all, regardless of numbers" is a bad idea?
How bad does it have to get? I guess I am not sure. Do I harvest a deer every year? No. Do I harvest one 8 out of 10 years? Yes. Could I harvest one every year in the current format? Probably.
Is that dire in my mind? No.
But that's exactly what's going on. If (for some imaginary reason) people from other states decided to flood WA and buy OTC tags, we'd sell a million tags without asking why. We'd unleash hundreds of thousands of hunters to overharvest the herds. There's no limit, there's no science, and frankly there's little opportunity.
I am a new hunter, I may never see success - I accept that. But to me, I can go walk around in the woods for free. I can even carry a rifle if I choose to. I can do it during hunting season, without purchasing a tag. So what is the WDFW selling me? The "opportunity"? Well, that suggests that the woods have deer in them. Otherwise they're selling me nothing.
Let's imagine that for the last few years instead of buying tags and walking around in the woods with a rifle, I just saved my money (bought no tags) and walked around in the woods with a rifle. The only difference is the chance to pull the trigger. If you remove that chance because the deer populations are so low, then we're being swindled.
Selling an unlimited amount of tags to an unlimited amount of hunters is bad policy. I am new enough at this sport that I could realistically just throw my hands in the air in frustration and walk away and go find another past-time. I would think that some of you lifelong hunters would have more concern.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:16:52 PM
If this is the goal then yes what you suggest is the way to do it. People just need to realize that if they want quality there is going to be less opportunity. Plus you need to define what quality is. To some quality is not having other hunters in the area, that is easy limit tags to very few. To others quality is trophy animals, that one is tougher. For that you have to limit hunters but also work on a bunch more factors like predator reduction, habitat improvement and reduce other factors that are limiting trophy animals(tribal harvest).I don't see a connection to other states here...were talking about how to manage hunting quality in Washington.Playing devils advocate here but if these other "real mule deer" states have such a great plan why not move there? If you are joe the plumber they need plumbers in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.Hunting mulies doesn't pay real well. Plus my kids grandparents would be upset. But most importantly I have a great job that pays well and I'm almost half way to my 30.
Sent from my SM-G950U using TapatalkPicking up my family, quitting my good job, and moving my children away from their grandparents and cousins for better deer hunting isnt even remotely a realistic option. That's just silliness. And I'm a mule deer freak.I totally get it. There are a ton of people up here from California. Why because it is way cheaper to live up here than California. People get here but then want all the stuff that you have in expensive California.
I have property in eastern Washington, dirt road to get to it. People bought lots right next to me because it was so much cheaper than Suncadia and then complain about the gravel road and dust. "Why don't we have a paved road like Suncadia?" Because it costs more in Suncadia and that is how they paid for the paved road.
Kind of the same principle, people want their high paying jobs and convenience of a highly populated area and want the remote deer hunting opportunity that you have in much lower paying lower density populated states like Montana, Colorado and Idaho.
Its really a quality vs quantity discussion - and I get there are folks who lean more one way vs. the other. I'd prefer higher quality experiences in Washington and I think that is best achieved by more regulated tags. Fewer hunters and lower annual harvest = when you do get a tag there are less people hunting and in many instances more and/or bigger deer to be hunted.
There are many factors that effect deer populations and they have been discussed thoroughly on this site - but managing hunter harvest is one of the easiest, surest, and quickest ways to achieve increases in deer numbers in many units.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on February 25, 2019, 01:18:10 PM
I'd go 10 for 10 sir :chuckle: but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource. Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's. I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 01:21:04 PM
I'd go 10 for 10 sir :chuckle: but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource. Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's. I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
Uhh, yes, this is also the reason I don't kill deer. That's exactly the reason.
:chuckle: :bash:
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:32:55 PM
Exactly. The last two years I haven't taken a mule deer myself. I am confident I could have but rather enjoyed my time in the woods. I did help other new hunters harvest deer and show them the ropes. At this point in my hunting life that is really much more rewarding than harvesting a deer myself.I'd go 10 for 10 sir :chuckle: but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource. Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's. I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
I have purchased 1,500 acres of prime mule deer country. My buddies son shot a mule deer on it this year. One deer taken all year on that 1,500 acres. In the past there have been 15-20 deer taken off that same 1,500 acres. Once the population rebounds a bit I will probably allow more hunting but for now I am doing what I can to help it rebound. That same ground is elk winter range. Two elk taken off it this year.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:38:41 PM
I got lucky my first year hunting and shot a decent 4x4 mule deer. Next year I got lucky and shot a cow elk my first year hunting them. Then went to archery and hit a dry spell. Put in tons of miles, learned tons of new areas and tactics. Now I can shoot a deer almost every year if I want to and shoot an elk every other year on average. Put in your time and I am sure you will start filling tags.I'd go 10 for 10 sir :chuckle: but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource. Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's. I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
Uhh, yes, this is also the reason I don't kill deer. That's exactly the reason.
:chuckle: :bash:
I get back to camp at dark every hunt. Guys are three beers into the evening when I get back and saw nothing. Well they weren't out there long enough, I saw tons of animals.
I also adapt. I am not hunting the same areas for deer and elk that I hunted 10, 5 or even 3 years ago. I am hunting close but slightly different areas. Going to the same spot each year because you saw animals there 5 years ago isn't always the answer.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 01:44:12 PM
I got lucky my first year hunting and shot a decent 4x4 mule deer. Next year I got lucky and shot a cow elk my first year hunting them. Then went to archery and hit a dry spell. Put in tons of miles, learned tons of new areas and tactics. Now I can shoot a deer almost every year if I want to and shoot an elk every other year on average. Put in your time and I am sure you will start filling tags.I'd go 10 for 10 sir :chuckle: but the reason I don't is I have chosen not to continue to deplete the resource. Every buck I kill is one that wont be breeding doe's. I care about mule deer more than I care about hunting mule deer.No what i want is sound logical wildlife management. That's why I choose not to hunt in washington and take my money elsewhere.Exactly this is a choice everyone has.
The deer can handle x amount of overall harvest and still flourish and be healthy. To harvest x amount we need to issue x amount of tags. It's incredibly obvious that we cannot continue to do what we are doing. It is not working.
Just like everyone has the choice to stay right here in their home state and hunt OTC every year.
Serious question. Do you think that you could shoot a deer in this state 8 out of 10 years in this state under the current regulations for the next 10 years? How many times in the last 5 years have you gone hunting or taking someone hunting in this state during the season and not filled a tag? I am not saying filled every tag every year, nobody can expect that. But each year have you not been part of a hunt that ended up with a tag filled in this state for the most part?
Uhh, yes, this is also the reason I don't kill deer. That's exactly the reason.
:chuckle: :bash:
I get back to camp at dark every hunt. Guys are three beers into the evening when I get back and saw nothing. Well they weren't out there long enough, I saw tons of animals.
I also adapt. I am not hunting the same areas for deer and elk that I hunted 10, 5 or even 3 years ago. I am hunting close but slightly different areas. Going to the same spot each year because you saw animals there 5 years ago isn't always the answer.
You know it's interesting you say that (the last sentence) because I keep being told this: "Just keep hunting and learning the same area" and the engineer in me has me asking myself "Yeah but what if there's no animals there?"
It seems to me that consistency only matters if it's effective consistency - hunting the same patch of barren earth for 20 years won't get you success. And therein lies my problem: Hunting was ripped out of my family when my dad bailed, and I am left to figure it out on my own with no friends or family who hunt.
And go ahead and guess how forthcoming hunters are with their hunting locations.
(now THIS is definitely a derail, so probably don't reply to this! Better to keep the thread on-topic regarding east/west)
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 01:47:09 PM
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 01:49:28 PM
Ultimately, I have no experience and no knowledge and I'll defer to the more senior members here on what's right. I just want to hope that one day this ludicrously expensive and frustrating hobby ends in success for me so that my sons don't view their dad as a failure at this thing he works so hard at.
Post by: Colville on February 25, 2019, 03:20:16 PM
Year Hunters Deer Killed %success
2016 115,901 31.3K 28.9%
2015 121,343 35.4K 31.3%
2014 120,488 32.2K 29.2%
2013 123,982 31.0K 27.2%
2012 120,082 31.1K 28.2%
2011 125,537 26.6K 23.2%
2010 131,133 30.7K 25.5%
2009 136,859 30.9K 24.7%
2008 144,000 31.5K 24.3%
2007 165,699 33.0K 27.2%
Now the deer killed includes doe. But the bottom line here is that take hasn't gone up with an average deer harvest about about 31k. Hunters are more efficient now, fewer hunters kill the same amount of deer with 20% fewer hunters. There's no new slaughter going on and the up and down of fires/winter are the worst of it. 2017 and 2018 May be uglier between wolves and winter in the NE.
The only trend here.... hunters are vanishing. You won't need to chose a side of the state to solve a problem. Hunter recruitment is garbage and looks like it's not going to get better, fewer hunters will mean more opportunity. Winters and predator management not withstanding.
Post by: ljsommer on February 25, 2019, 03:25:30 PM
Aside from the carping, what does the data show? Now we've had a couple bad winters and fires so I expect the 17-18 numbers will be lower, but what's the history say?
Year Hunters Deer Killed %success
2016 115,901 31.3K 28.9%
2015 121,343 35.4K 31.3%
2014 120,488 32.2K 29.2%
2013 123,982 31.0K 27.2%
2012 120,082 31.1K 28.2%
2011 125,537 26.6K 23.2%
2010 131,133 30.7K 25.5%
2009 136,859 30.9K 24.7%
2008 144,000 31.5K 24.3%
2007 165,699 33.0K 27.2%
Now the deer killed includes doe. But the bottom line here is that take hasn't gone up with an average deer harvest about about 31k. Hunters are more efficient now, fewer hunters kill the same amount of deer with 20% fewer hunters. There's no new slaughter going on and the up and down of fires/winter are the worst of it. 2017 and 2018 May be uglier between wolves and winter in the NE.
The only trend here.... hunters are vanishing. You won't need to chose a side of the state to solve a problem. Hunter recruitment is garbage and looks like it's not going to get better, fewer hunters will mean more opportunity. Winters and predator management not withstanding.
I am a little confused on that last point, that fewer hunters means more opportunity. I see 33k deer killed with 165.7k hunters (2007), and 35.4k with 121k hunters (2015). Also is anyone else shocked at this success rate? I constantly look up GMU harvest success rates in just about every GMU in the entire state (since I don't know where the hell to hunt) and I am seeing more like 7-9% success rate, not anything bonkers like 30%. How the hell is anyone getting success rates that high?
Either something's fishy or I should just quit now.
Edit: Added years of data for clarity
Post by: Colville on February 25, 2019, 03:34:54 PM
We also have multi season permits now so that the same # of hunters can hunt more days and be more efficient. I think the mutli season reflects the reduction in hunters rather than increase in deer numbers. Buck success isn't at 30%.
Post by: Rainier10 on February 25, 2019, 04:04:19 PM
ljsommer, I can't attest to the math, but to say that this includes all units, all hunts, all hunting methods and includes Doe.:yeah: That is taking all weapons seasons and special permits into account. One thing that you notice is the number of deer harvested stays the same. That is because that is how many deer the game department wants harvested each year. They change the season days and permit numbers based on success rates for each area and method to make sure that they are taking the amount of deer out of the population to maintain the herd, a healthy habitat and people conflicts(auto collisions and crop damage).
We also have multi season permits now so that the same # of hunters can hunt more days and be more efficient. I think the mutli season reflects the reduction in hunters rather than increase in deer numbers. Buck success isn't at 30%.
I do think if you had to choose a side you would see less opportunity on the east side, they would shorten seasons and lower permit numbers because too many people would be trying harder to fill their eastside tag.
I also think that you would see longer seasons and more permits on the west side because less people would be hunting on the west side.
Deer harvest numbers would stay the same and success would stay the same statewide. You would have higher success rates on the west side and lower success rates on the eastside.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on February 25, 2019, 05:29:39 PM
Pressure will remain the same regardless of pick your side IF all that changes is pick a side, species, whatever.... pressure will remain the same statewide. It will simply be redistributed. Trying to predict how it is redistributed is a crap shoot at best.
Post by: Stein on February 25, 2019, 06:06:57 PM
One thing that you notice is the number of deer harvested stays the same. That is because that is how many deer the game department wants harvested each year. They change the season days and permit numbers based on success rates for each area and method to make sure that they are taking the amount of deer out of the population to maintain the herd, a healthy habitat and people conflicts(auto collisions and crop damage).
There may be one of the big problems. Over the last 10 years, WDFW hasn't seen anything that would cause them to increase or decrease the number of deer taken by hunters? Or, would one argue they have the carrying capacity all figured out and perfectly balanced and just need to take the magical number every year to keep it right where they want it?
I think picking east or west wouldn't do much in terms of overall numbers killed, just more in some places and fewer in others. I bet a big chunk of the hunters only hunt one side and do a single deer hunting trip a year.