Post by: Colville on October 29, 2007, 11:13:25 AM
FW says our herd numbers are in decent shape. We do not have Idaho/WY/CO's habitat quality or quantity. We won't be putting out 220 class bucks in the ALW regardless of the management technique.
Almost all of those in favor of draw only are primarily interested in hunting trophy class animals. Why should that be a priority? Does your desire to hunt older deer outweigh the desire of a guy to hunt every year who's willing to shoot 3 pts? I think it's especially notable when you realize that you have to steal opportunity from several of those guys in order to provide it to the "quality" fanatics. There is no way to maintain opportunity while restricting hunting to quality, none. You have to take from what is the majority of hunters in order to provide quality to the fewer of them.
"Improve our herds" is a punch line. There's nothing wrong with maximizing opportunity as long as overall pop numbers and buck doe ratios are maintained. The science side of the population can be met in either quality or quantity modes and claims that quality hunt restrictions are required for herd health is flatly untrue. Be honest, this is about wants not needs. There are numerous methods to reducing impact; season timing, boundaries, length, weapon etc. This is a battle between hunters. Between those who think the resources should be managed to provide them with the best quality and those who want to hunt feeling that not being able to hunt in exchange for improved quality when you do is not a good trade off.
I have passed on any number of deer any number of times, but I want to hunt every year. Telling me that I'll have to keep my kids interested in hunting while telling them they'll get to do it every other or every 3rd year is not a recipe for hunter recruitment. Cutting Special apps to 2 choices, restricting hunting days if you put in... any other number of methods could reduce those willing to go after the special tags and I see no problem with that. I am however not pleased with the prospect that all hunters will have to give up their annual tradition because the vocal minority of hunters wants to hunt bigger deer less frequently.
BTW, much like Elk in north of Hwy 2. The state can decide to "fix" the whitetail issue in the areas they are growing into very easily by making that an any deer whitetail unit or even an extra tag any whitetail unit. It doesn't solve everything but it also goes to another bias... mule deer are everything the other deer are what we do after we hunt our blessed mule deer.
I have no problem with guys hunting trophy's. I love their pics. I love their drive and passion. I know many and in many respects I am one. I'm a little amazed they often seem to feel they are the real hunters and that they are entitled to the resource and the loser fork shooters should shut the hell up and take what they're given. Hunter recruitment is pis-poor and LE and draw only management only makes things worse. I'm open to all kinds of discussion on how to reduce the number of guys going for individual tags of high desire I'm just not impressed at all with the unstated given: quality hunt supporters have the high ground. They don't.
Post by: boneaddict on October 29, 2007, 12:09:41 PM
Post by: tlbradford on October 29, 2007, 04:27:36 PM
Post by: boneaddict on October 30, 2007, 06:24:57 AM
Post by: jackelope on October 30, 2007, 08:04:32 AM
we could kill 4 or maybe even 5 deer(can't remember) in new york where i lived if you hunted with rifle, archery and muzz. we would each take a couple does and a buck every year and my grandfathers place was still crawling with them every year.
Post by: cipryan on October 30, 2007, 10:30:00 AM
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 10:35:49 AM
Bottom line though is that F&G doesn't perceive a herd problem for mule deer in north central so they aren't motivated to do anything about the whitetails. At least they could open a late season for whitetail bucks in this area, not that that will reduce their numbers. Instead of LE late whitetail permits for sinlahekin how bout a 5 day open late season weekdays only? Why not move some of the youth antlerless to whitetail only... anyhow, there's about 50 ways to get at improving mule deer that doesn't require a draw only system.
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 11:30:51 AM
Are not the special youth tags draw only??
The fact by the percentage number's of State draw vs. general hunts is that the State is trending about 1% annual increase in draw only tag hunts and has been trending that way for many years. Most higher level State game poeple will tell you that's where we are headed. It seems Colville's focus is on the NE corner of the State, a very small portion of the huntable land in Wa.. Particularly in Western Washington, I don't see how it would be logical to assume, given the loss of several thousand acres of habitat per week, that we can continue with the same number of general hunts and the same amount of hunting pressure in shrinking areas. It's well documented that State hunter numbers have been declining for years, why is that? Everyone I know who has quit hunting, has done so because of hunting areas that were overcrowded to the point of being dangerous. I also don't understand this 'fear of State owned lands' mentality. Don't people get that those lands are really owned by US, you and me??? We have a certain amount of control and input over how they are used, where a private owner may close his doors, or sell out to a development firm any day of the week.
Post by: jackelope on October 30, 2007, 11:55:11 AM
Quote
Are not the special youth tags draw only??
there's a general youth 10/27-11/4 in gmu's 105-124 for antlerless whiteys open to youths and disabled hunters, oct 13-26 and 11/5-19 same gmus for any whitetail deer, and then 10/13-21 for a whole bunch of units for doe/3pt minimum whitey. see page 17 in the regs.
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 12:17:33 PM
None? Really? How about starting the season Nov. 1st and running it through the 9th. Still open for 9 days but arguably would see better quality animals. I'm not saying this is a good option but there "is a way"
"Telling me that I'll have to keep my kids interested in hunting while telling them they'll get to do it every other or every 3rd year is not a recipe for hunter recruitment."
I completley agree
"they often seem to feel they are the real hunters and that they are entitled to the resource and the loser fork shooters should shut the hell up and take what they're given."
Did I miss something in an earlier post? I don't recall anyone on this site calling anyone a loser or seeing anyone tell someone to "shut the hell up and take what they're given"
You made some good points, lets not make this site ugly like the others with accusatory false statements;^)......................rf
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 12:40:46 PM
I didn't quote any individual here, nor am I accusing anyone in particular of brow beating meat hunters. I am not new to hunting or hunting web sites. There is a general attitude on the net that people who want to hunt every year and are satisfied with smaller deer are the lesser of our hunters. That is a generalization, but it's not an inaccurate one.
Dman, I am not focussed on the NE at all. My remarks re shooting whitetails aggressively were aimed at the north central herds of mule deer. Why is it that we'll have more pressure all the time necessitating draw only if in fact we are reducing hunters participating every year? Why are our herd numbers stable, even improving, and yet we need to do restrict oportunity? Something doesn't add up. So far in all the discussions all there has been is anecdotal evidence offered as to why this is needed. Before I"m willing to give up hunting every year I need to see that the situation can't be managed with open seasons. My point is that you have both concluded what will happen to herds when it hasn't yet, concluded what is the best way to approach the solution and then given it a fait acompli by saying get used to it, it's what F&G wants to do anyhow.
I'm not willing to concede any of it. If you want to restrict opportunity then I think you have 2 burdens. 1. To prove that there exists a herd population problem that is directly related to our open seasons. 2. that there aren't other means to solve that problem than taking away general seasons. If you do those things with compelling evidence I'll be the first to sign on.
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 12:51:37 PM
-D
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 12:53:33 PM
That was my point on that other thread, exactly. Something doesn't add up, you are right................rf
Post by: boneaddict on October 30, 2007, 12:59:01 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 01:03:56 PM
Well to part 1, F&G biologists have already said the heard numbers are at a 20 year high in N.Central.
To part 2, they shortened the season two years ago to end on Oct. 21st. I find it hard to believe the numbers increased only in these last two years, which means they had strong numbers and still shortened the season, why? Did they feel they needed to do this fearing the numbers would drop dramatically if they left the season through Oct. 28th?
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 01:11:35 PM
90-100,000 acres of habitat are lost annually in Washington to development today, 2007.
This number has been increasing annually for decades and on the current pace, well double to 200,000 acres lost per year within 10-15 more years, roughly the size of the Vail and Snoqualmie tree farms combined, which can support approximately 5,000 hunter's per year. That 5,000 more hunter's by the year 2020 that will be out of a place to hunt. If your still not seeing it, I'm out of ammo on this one.....
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 01:16:32 PM
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 01:19:24 PM
Also Dman, the "where" is key to the "lost habitat". Not all habitat is the same. Not all is currently huntable, even if it is actually habitat. If you are right, where's the decline in deer numbers associated with the habitat loss and again... WHERE? Which GMU's? Is the whole state homogeneous and because areas x & y are under pressure the whole state needs a draw only? Again, you are using vast generalizations about 1 part of a multi variant model of populations and then using only your preferred solution without providing if there might be others. That's not good enough.
Bone, I have only the state's data to rely upon. I appreciate they can make mistakes but I'm not prepared to argue that the well considered opinions of a few hunters is a superior data pool to argue from. I'd accept another source other than the state but I don't know who's qualified to offer a scientific opinion, I'm all ears though.
Post by: boneaddict on October 30, 2007, 01:33:12 PM
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 01:44:06 PM
But, from the last set of data our herds weren't only not in bad shape they were on the upper end of good. They could come back some and be considered "ok". But the other side of that is not just knowing what the numbers are but what is driving them, hunters? Weather? Habitat? Predation? Then of course, what's the range of solutions. Is there only one? Draw only? I'm having a hard time with that and I'm not even seeing an effort to look at another solution, at least from Dman. Draw only everywhere is kind of the nuclear approach when I'm not convinced we can't be a little more precise in the bombing if in fact it's needed.
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 01:57:40 PM
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 02:05:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 02:14:22 PM
I'm not following you. With less and less hunters each year, how do the general hunts get more pressure? and then forcing more limited entry hunts? Can you explain it better for us morons, I just dont get what your saying...............rf
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 02:52:09 PM
On the Methow herd, sorry but if Fitkin stated that, that is a load of crap. I was there just last year when the biologist for the Methow area, none other than Mr. Fitkin, stated that in most areas of the Methow the winter kill resulted in up to a 60% herd loss. Now you want me to believe there was a 70% increase in ONE YEAR. Garbage. That would be a record for fawn production and survival.
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 03:23:43 PM
As far as repeating the same question, go back and read reply #22. Have you addressed that before and I just missed it? All I was asking was you to make it more clear what you're saying.
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 03:27:10 PM
Region 2 buck harvest 2005 -4340
Region 2 buck harvest 2006 -3,570
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 03:37:46 PM
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 03:48:58 PM
Post by: huntnphool on October 30, 2007, 04:01:47 PM
In effect isn't that what they have done already, shortening the season to 9 days and backing it to the middle of Oct.? I mean, this way your never going to see a migratory buck unless you do draw that permit. They don't come down into that area until the weather and rut push them down, which doesn't happen in this state until Nov, typically. I agree with you on most of your points but like Colville said, its really not fair to penalize your average hunter just because you and I want to hunt trophy animals. Do you really know poeple that stopped hunting because a piece of land was sold? Sounds to me like they were in it for the wrong reasons. Why not just go to a different area, or better yet, buy the land themselves.
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 04:18:28 PM
If East Okanagon has no problem... Why are you wanting to push a solution?????? See the title of this thread.
If Mission can have a general season, but you want to draw one of 200 apps is that because mission can't support a general season or because you want to hunt 4 pts in November there? Why is that preferable to higher hunter numbers and lower takes in an early October season? Why should 4000 hunters lose their hunting grounds for 200 to kill a big buck in the rut? You keep forwarding answers to questions/problems that aren't established. What is mission's herd like and in what ways can the problem there be addressed and why would a shut down and issue of 200 LE permits be the best solution except that you want to hunt big deer there in the migration?
Weather and hair slip problems can correct and the herd recovers. The restrictions can be lifted. It sounds like you want a pre-emptive solution for all mule deer hunting even if the herds in those GMU's don't have the problem. I assume they don't, because as you've pointed out F&G didn't impose the restrictions everywhere. I understand habitat loss and it can/does affect what kind of herd numbers will be supportable but you aren't making any specific case about any particular unit based on an identified population problem nor have you explained why your solution is the best while offering it up as a solution to areas without problems.
I'm not a state bio. I'm not claiming to have the answers but I'll not accept a draw only state of affairs without first being convinced it is truly needed and other solutions aren't as good.
Post by: Dman on October 30, 2007, 04:45:53 PM
Post by: Colville on October 30, 2007, 05:17:55 PM
You said it yourself, "why wait until a unit has an issue to manage it for the best quality beforehand?"... Because I'm not trying to at all. I'm trying to manage for quantity. And if done correctly, the quality actually remains like it does today for a limited few to hunt when they are truly huntable in Nov.
In your scenario I see a massive loss of participation in hunting. This is bad bad news for hunting in general. It also will begin the push toward greater and greater commoditization of hunting because the department needs the participation for the revenue, cut participation and what do you have to do to make up the loss, pretty simple. I see horrors of SFW and becoming Utah where money rules who hunts where, when.
I'd much rather have an early general season and have to work harder than most are willing to get a decent opportunity but in fact have that choice and chance every year than see 2/3rds of WA mule deer hunters lose their hunting so that the kill rate goes way up when they do.
BTW.. Colville is a moniker, not my home. I'm on the west side. I have a long established whitetail camp for friends and family in the NE hence the name. I backpack hunt the high hunt, though not well in ALW and GP. I have hunted deer in many parts of the state though. The fact that whitetails are in general small really means nothing to me. I love to hunt them, I love to eat them. Same for mule deer. My view of what's best for the future of hunting is giving the very most possible opportunity to the most hunters. Also, before the first go round, ages ago, of cutting the forests in the NE area Mule deer were much more prevalent. I don't see many mule deer, but where I hunt over there, I generally only see big ones. But they are damn hard to hunt not made any easier by having to do it in Oct. Again, I'd gladly trade the chance and right to pursue them as hard as it is, every year over much higher success rates and hunting every 3rd. It's not even close for me.
"I can hike around in the woods any day of the week without buying a license, or tag and not harvest a deer, pointless." Not pointless at all. I don't know if there's a stat, but I'd bet good money that 30% of hunters are killing 60% of the deer. Meaning, the best hunters are sealing the deal most years, year in year out. They can get it done inside the regs as they are now. They aren't walking in the woods not killing deer or just feeling like it's an absolute dice toss. You think Bone has any doubt about whether he can take a 3pt any yr? The point is, for many committed hunters it's already not a dice toss because they've done their hard work and that opportunity exists for everyone. Along with the opportunity not to be hard core and be glad to just luck into a buck now and again. Today a guy can bust his nut and be a better hunter and get his odds way up or chose not to. In draw only success goes way up but the price is very very steep to the rest.
Post by: boneaddict on October 30, 2007, 06:47:24 PM
Bone's thoughts.....
.....the population is much lower than stated.
...... a November general season hunt would be devastating to the herd.
........I don't like draw only and think the mix of general season now and late draw tags are a good mix so folks can all have a chance to hunt and some can have great hunt.
...... the current draw needs to be revamped a bit to encourage better draw odds, or make it more selective to those that are trophy hunting
......resources need to be better managed (ok..the wolves/predators and Indians need to be dealt with)