Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 07:17:41 PM
My name is Jacob Villasenor. I recently recorded a podcast with Dan Staton who is the owner of ElkShape. There we discussed how the current harvest management for quality managed Rocky Mountain Herds in Washington (Yakima, Colockum, & the Blues) has led to a degradation in hunter opportunity in the past 10 years. I understand that the herds have taken a hit in the past few years and even looked into the system prior to 2015 when the drought was followed by 2 hard winters.
Even in 2014 when things were about as good as they can get with the current system, the amount of hunters applying for tags vs how many tags were being allocated for branch bulls was low enough that even rifle hunters (who make up ~60% of the participating elk hunters) at the time could go their whole lives without drawing a tag early or late, even someone with close to max points!! The system broke somewhere in the late 2000s and eventually every applicant will have low odds of drawing a tag with little chance to increase their odds as point creep will continue to plague the bonus point system.
The problem is most of the bulls being harvested in these units are taken as 1 year olds and that population never gets to reach maturity. If we were to remove the general spike season along with other regulations to focus the huge hunting population here it is possible that we can maintain good odds of drawing tags even to the point where archery hunters may have the possibility to draw tags every 5 years, muzzy hunters every 10 years and rifle hunters every 10-25 years depending on the tag. If you think that was what was available before 2015 you're mistaken. I have a bunch of data that supports these arguments.
Also I have discovered that it seems that the survey techniques for determining Bull to Cow ratios in the Colockum and Yakima seem inefficient as well. It appears that the numbers may be higher than the department is reporting and would be detrimental to hunters to allow to continue as allocation of tags is dependent on most of the data that comes from these surveys. I'm not arguing that the numbers are down but rather that even in the good years the number of bulls being reported was likely lower than what was being reported and if it continues after these herds recover then it will continue to degrade hunter opportunity.
Please approach this discussion whether you support it or not with constructive feedback as I know not many people are content with the system as it sits now and nothing is going to change if don't even have the discussion. I look forward to seeing your comments and arguments!
Post by: trophyhunt on June 01, 2020, 07:21:25 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2020, 07:24:30 PM
Post by: huntnfmly on June 01, 2020, 07:28:11 PM
No, we should actually open the season up to match the tribes.+1
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 01, 2020, 07:28:15 PM
Post by: ironbuck on June 01, 2020, 07:37:45 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 01, 2020, 07:43:56 PM
Tribes just gonna shoot em all why spend a minute or a dime on ityup, thas why we should share their season. And when there are no deer, elk left, things will change. If the tribes have nothing to hunt, they’ll be forced to negotiate.
Post by: Bullkllr on June 01, 2020, 07:44:59 PM
Worked for steelhead.
Post by: Skillet on June 01, 2020, 07:55:15 PM
:twocents:
Post by: Mfowl on June 01, 2020, 08:00:35 PM
Post by: muleyslayer on June 01, 2020, 08:01:17 PM
Post by: HillHound on June 01, 2020, 08:02:23 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on June 01, 2020, 08:15:54 PM
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:22:21 PM
No, we should actually open the season up to match the tribes.
My response to those talking about tribal hunting. As frustrating as it can be, tribal hunting isn't something we can change as non tribal WA hunters. For those of you frustrated they definitely haven't killed all the elk in the past there were plenty running around when I hunted OTC spikes in Yakima and they weren't the sole reason for the current numbers of rockies as it sits today. So opening up our seasons to match theirs (even though this would never happen) would destroy our elk herds in the eastern portion of the state. I don't think I would ever advocate that as it seems as effective as looting to make a statement about equality. That might be controversial but I'm not taking any of this to heart and will continue to discuss these changes and hope opportunity gets better here.
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:24:16 PM
I vote no, why give up an OTC opportunity? I agree that something needs to be done about the tribal individuals who exploit their rights.
Because what is being passed as OTC opportunity creates crowded woods and success rates that hover between .5-6% on the high end in most of these herds managed this way. Compared to other states that is nothing.
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:25:07 PM
Welcome to the site Jacob, put your seatbelt on. ;)
For some reason it logged me on as an account I made way back in the day. I've been on the site plenty before I posted this! Thanks though!
Post by: mburrows on June 01, 2020, 08:26:21 PM
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:28:09 PM
I thought it was draw only except spikes? There are no spikes so doesn’t matter but yea if question is no spike tags yea do it.
Yeah would transfer the spike harvest to a draw only system where those elk are taken as 2-10 year old bulls. Talked with the Elk bio in Yakima and he said there are 10,11, and 12 year old bulls running around that never get taken and die of old age on a regular basis. He even darted a 16 year old so the current tag allocation under this system isn't allowing enough hunter the option to take branch bulls. This happens in part because the WDFW has to cross their fingers hoping that the general season harvests the amount of bulls they hope it to rather than potentially slaughtering them on year and killing most of the bulls that will escape to become mature animals
Post by: Special T on June 01, 2020, 08:30:00 PM
Where is a link so I can listen to the podcast?
This discussion usually revolves around a few points so we might as well identify them.
1 tribal hunting. All sportsmen are frustrated because they dont report, kill lots of nice animals and a few like to rub our nose in it. AND contrary to running discussion we cant do a damned thing about it.
2 predator management. The loss of hound hunting and the introduction of wolves have allowed them to thrive. IT is a discussion unto itself that can take up a whole thread. predators are not managed.
3 Permit only several variations of this discussion have been bantered back and forth. This year archers can only kill spikes like everyone else so it is as close to the permit system as you can get. The mIn problem in my opinion of going permit only is the 1 you have to choose a side of the state 2 you have to buy you elk tag before you put in for the draw. Most other states you pay for the draw, perhaps put the $ down but if you dont get drawn you dont have to buy the tag. This state gets to squeeze the sportsmen on all sides. If this solution is going to be pursued the a compleate revamp of the elk tag system will have to take place. Not an easy undertaking.
Most discussions focus on one point and try to drive its importance home. I am of the opinion that at least 2 of the 3 need to be undertaken. If you examine the Game Management Plans they attempt to manage them in seperate colums as if the management of cats has no effect on deer or elk numbers. I am of the opinion that permitted only by itself is folly. It allows the expansion of predators and does nothing to resolve the contention with tribal hunters.
My 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:30:29 PM
Draw only i would be 100% on board with. With the exception of keep it general season for youth in certain units and seasons.
That's an interesting idea, would a higher allocation of tags to youth hunters in the draws make up for a general season? I would love getting more young hunters out in the woods. Seems like a solid idea!
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:42:13 PM
Welcome Jacob!
Where is a link so I can listen to the podcast?
This discussion usually revolves around a few points so we might as well identify them.
1 tribal hunting. All sportsmen are frustrated because they dont report, kill lots of nice animals and a few like to rub our nose in it. AND contrary to running discussion we cant do a damned thing about it.
2 predator management. The loss of hound hunting and the introduction of wolves have allowed them to thrive. IT is a discussion unto itself that can take up a whole thread. predators are not managed.
3 Permit only several variations of this discussion have been bantered back and forth. This year archers can only kill spikes like everyone else so it is as close to the permit system as you can get. The mIn problem in my opinion of going permit only is the 1 you have to choose a side of the state 2 you have to buy you elk tag before you put in for the draw. Most other states you pay for the draw, perhaps put the $ down but if you dont get drawn you dont have to buy the tag. This state gets to squeeze the sportsmen on all sides. If this solution is going to be pursued the a compleate revamp of the elk tag system will have to take place. Not an easy undertaking.
Most discussions focus on one point and try to drive its importance home. I am of the opinion that at least 2 of the 3 need to be undertaken. If you examine the Game Management Plans they attempt to manage them in seperate colums as if the management of cats has no effect on deer or elk numbers. I am of the opinion that permitted only by itself is folly. It allows the expansion of predators and does nothing to resolve the contention with tribal hunters.
My 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Interesting Points!
1: are you saying we can do something about it, cause as far as i know those regulations are set by the tribes in accordance with their treaties and since they are independent entities the state has no say other than offering suggestions. Honestly seems like the Colville have there S*** together since they are killing great bulls and bucks every year up there and have super generous seasons. Using diplomacy is the best way create change towards this issue in my opinion.
2: I agree with you on predator management. I have delved into that issue as much as I have this one but I don't understand why we can kill two bears a year but minimal units have spring seasons and they are draw only. If we could pressure bears more in the spring I think it could be effective in curbing this. I don't have a lot of hope with they way wolves are moving in especially with the social standing of the west side of the state and non hunters views toward them but I would like to be able to get a jump on managing them. Got pushed out of an area in the Eagle Caps in Oregon last year because a pack shut down the rut. One day bugling bulls the next few just howling in every direction.
3: The reason for the choosing he side of the state is to focus hunters. Units are already crowded with this in place so honestly I would like to see stricter changes to elk zones like Idaho so hunters can't buy an east side tag, compete in the draws for blues and colockum and hunt yakima for spikes or selkirk etc...
If washington made a hunting license system and didn't make hunters buy a tag prior to putting in that would be great but that would have to come with making hunters pick a zone to apply in rather than applying all over the place and buying an otc if they don't draw. I believe OTC units would become overrun unless they were capped if hunters were able to put in for east and hunt west if they didn't draw. Unfortunately this is the case with how many hunters compete in this state.
I made another post about all my proposals in more detail if you want to check it out!
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:47:02 PM
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/welcome-to-the-washington-state-elk-show/id1315352438?i=1000476158686
Post by: MtnMuley on June 01, 2020, 08:47:54 PM
All poking aside, you have some very fine points my friend. I've supported alternatives like you've described for many years. Guys like you making a stance, help our cause. Thanks. :tup:
Post by: MAVsled on June 01, 2020, 08:48:42 PM
Keep the OTC spike bull seasons. BUT limit the special elk permit tags to one GMU, ONE hunt choice. NOT 4 choices. And make the any bull permit for 3 point or better bull tag.
I meet hunters every year in the field that have drawn the bull permit in the 360 unit that I hunt elk. Many have never hunted the unit before. Just look at the internet & this website; "drawn such and such unit bull tag. Never been there before, anyone have any pointers? etc etc etc.
I keep tabs on their camps, talk with them later in the season etc. And some only hunt a few days, some just the weekends, not the entire season.
But most never fill their "any Bull" tags with a branched antlered bull....they either don't know the unit well or are rookie elk hunters and don't know much. Or they think they know it all and don't know shiat!
I've observed several will dump spikes instead in the early 4 day any bull season, rather than wait until general season kicks in and hunting pressure or if lucky bad snowy weather moves the bulls down out of the wilderness.
I could fill my tag every year on a branched bull.....because I know my GMU and flow of the elk depending on conditions.
since the special bull tags started, I've drawn it 3x and filled it all 3 times.
Post by: Special T on June 01, 2020, 09:00:05 PM
Welcome Jacob!
Where is a link so I can listen to the podcast?
This discussion usually revolves around a few points so we might as well identify them.
1 tribal hunting. All sportsmen are frustrated because they dont report, kill lots of nice animals and a few like to rub our nose in it. AND contrary to running discussion we cant do a damned thing about it.
2 predator management. The loss of hound hunting and the introduction of wolves have allowed them to thrive. IT is a discussion unto itself that can take up a whole thread. predators are not managed.
3 Permit only several variations of this discussion have been bantered back and forth. This year archers can only kill spikes like everyone else so it is as close to the permit system as you can get. The mIn problem in my opinion of going permit only is the 1 you have to choose a side of the state 2 you have to buy you elk tag before you put in for the draw. Most other states you pay for the draw, perhaps put the $ down but if you dont get drawn you dont have to buy the tag. This state gets to squeeze the sportsmen on all sides. If this solution is going to be pursued the a compleate revamp of the elk tag system will have to take place. Not an easy undertaking.
Most discussions focus on one point and try to drive its importance home. I am of the opinion that at least 2 of the 3 need to be undertaken. If you examine the Game Management Plans they attempt to manage them in seperate colums as if the management of cats has no effect on deer or elk numbers. I am of the opinion that permitted only by itself is folly. It allows the expansion of predators and does nothing to resolve the contention with tribal hunters.
My 2c
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Interesting Points!
1: are you saying we can do something about it, cause as far as i know those regulations are set by the tribes in accordance with their treaties and since they are independent entities the state has no say other than offering suggestions. Honestly seems like the Colville have there S*** together since they are killing great bulls and bucks every year up there and have super generous seasons. Using diplomacy is the best way create change towards this issue in my opinion.
2: I agree with you on predator management. I have delved into that issue as much as I have this one but I don't understand why we can kill two bears a year but minimal units have spring seasons and they are draw only. If we could pressure bears more in the spring I think it could be effective in curbing this. I don't have a lot of hope with they way wolves are moving in especially with the social standing of the west side of the state and non hunters views toward them but I would like to be able to get a jump on managing them. Got pushed out of an area in the Eagle Caps in Oregon last year because a pack shut down the rut. One day bugling bulls the next few just howling in every direction.
3: The reason for the choosing he side of the state is to focus hunters. Units are already crowded with this in place so honestly I would like to see stricter changes to elk zones like Idaho so hunters can't buy an east side tag, compete in the draws for blues and colockum and hunt yakima for spikes or selkirk etc...
If washington made a hunting license system and didn't make hunters buy a tag prior to putting in that would be great but that would have to come with making hunters pick a zone to apply in rather than applying all over the place and buying an otc if they don't draw. I believe OTC units would become overrun unless they were capped if hunters were able to put in for east and hunt west if they didn't draw. Unfortunately this is the case with how many hunters compete in this state.
I made another post about all my proposals in more detail if you want to check it out!
1 there are some things that could be done. Most arnt to peoples satisfaction everyone like to hate onIndians, and a handful of Yakimas build everyone's blood pressure.
2, The Animal rights activists have the department afraid of lawsuits. This spring bear season was supposed to have mandated hide tagging to increase tooth samples, sexing and surgery to see if harvested females were lactating. This is a political battle and has nothing to do with good science. In the bear management plan there are only 2 units of concern and one of them is the low lands Puget sound where the population lives.
3 since I dont subscribe to permits being a solution I wont propose it as one. I will say that I have hunted Eastern oregon and I think thier system has merrit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Mfowl on June 01, 2020, 09:01:51 PM
I vote no, why give up an OTC opportunity? I agree that something needs to be done about the tribal individuals who exploit their rights.
Because what is being passed as OTC opportunity creates crowded woods and success rates that hover between .5-6% on the high end in most of these herds managed this way. Compared to other states that is nothing.
I am not opposed to your ideas I just don't want to give up an OTC opportunity that more than likely will never comeback. Someone can hunt on the cheap and not even participate in the draw process if they so choose. I also think doing away with an OTC opportunity will diminish hunter participation going forward. We have a higher population than many other western elk hunting states. Crowds are just a fact of hunting life here.
Post by: Skillet on June 01, 2020, 09:06:52 PM
I vote no, why give up an OTC opportunity? I agree that something needs to be done about the tribal individuals who exploit their rights.
Because what is being passed as OTC opportunity creates crowded woods and success rates that hover between .5-6% on the high end in most of these herds managed this way. Compared to other states that is nothing.
I am not opposed to your ideas I just don't want to give up an OTC opportunity that more than likely will never comeback. Someone can hunt on the cheap and not even participate in the draw process if they so choose. I also think doing away with an OTC opportunity will diminish hunter participation going forward. We have a higher population than many other western elk hunting states. Crowds are just a fact of hunting life here.
Washington is the smallest of the 11 Western States, with the 2nd highest population.
Post by: villajac29 on June 01, 2020, 09:47:51 PM
Quote: "talked with the Elk bio in Yakima and he said there are 10,11, and 12 year old bulls running around that never get taken and die of old age on a regular basis."
Keep the OTC spike bull seasons. BUT limit the special elk permit tags to one GMU, ONE hunt choice. NOT 4 choices. And make the any bull permit for 3 point or better bull tag.
I meet hunters every year in the field that have drawn the bull permit in the 360 unit that I hunt elk. Many have never hunted the unit before. Just look at the internet & this website; "drawn such and such unit bull tag. Never been there before, anyone have any pointers? etc etc etc.
I keep tabs on their camps, talk with them later in the season etc. And some only hunt a few days, some just the weekends, not the entire season.
But most never fill their "any Bull" tags with a branched antlered bull....they either don't know the unit well or are rookie elk hunters and don't know much. Or they think they know it all and don't know shiat!
I've observed several will dump spikes instead in the early 4 day any bull season, rather than wait until general season kicks in and hunting pressure or if lucky bad snowy weather moves the bulls down out of the wilderness.
I could fill my tag every year on a branched bull.....because I know my GMU and flow of the elk depending on conditions.
since the special bull tags started, I've drawn it 3x and filled it all 3 times.
Sounds like you really have that area figured out. The problem is that hunters who just started will most likely only draw that specific tag once in there life now that the system has hit a point of diminishing returns. Point creep will keep everyone's odds low and I find it highly unlikely that you will draw that tag again within the next 30 years. Sacrificing a chance at spikes every year will give you and other hunters the chance to not compete with 1000 other rifle hunters and likely see more bulls running around above 2 years of age. Here's a table I developed showing how many years it would take to give everyone in the application pool a tag if they prevented any new applicants and barred those who drew from reapplying. Remember this was before the drop in population. Hope it gives you good reference and shows you how lucky you really are to have drawn that tag 3 times.
Post by: villajac29 on June 01, 2020, 09:49:16 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 01, 2020, 09:55:52 PM
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 01, 2020, 10:01:36 PM
its been spike only for 29 years on the Yakima herd. Plenty of them make it through, we saw a dozen different spikes in early April in the Cowiche unit. The herd had 40-50 total. People get discouraged quick every year, but at least you get to go chase some elk around. So absolutely in no way go draw only, completely stupid ideaI thought it was draw only except spikes? There are no spikes so doesn’t matter but yea if question is no spike tags yea do it.
Yeah would transfer the spike harvest to a draw only system where those elk are taken as 2-10 year old bulls. Talked with the Elk bio in Yakima and he said there are 10,11, and 12 year old bulls running around that never get taken and die of old age on a regular basis. He even darted a 16 year old so the current tag allocation under this system isn't allowing enough hunter the option to take branch bulls. This happens in part because the WDFW has to cross their fingers hoping that the general season harvests the amount of bulls they hope it to rather than potentially slaughtering them on year and killing most of the bulls that will escape to become mature animals
Post by: dvolmer on June 01, 2020, 10:37:15 PM
Yep like everyone is going to say tribes will shoot them all anyways. There’s no point in anything we do management wise because they don’t follow any of our restrictions. Anything we do to try to increase our opportunity will be taken advantage of by them long before we are ever able to reap the rewards. And as all will say this is the one group in the entire world that has inalienable rights no matter what. So I guess I would say I agree let’s just open it up to the same exact “season”as the tribes. Give it a year or two we will have almost no elk and they will be knocking on WDFW’s door to try to work with them.Very good insight!!!! you nailed it!
Post by: dvolmer on June 01, 2020, 10:58:03 PM
Post by: bobdog86 on June 01, 2020, 11:10:38 PM
Post by: Colville on June 01, 2020, 11:31:34 PM
Post by: hunterofelk on June 02, 2020, 06:35:55 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 07:06:08 AM
1.)Was it predators that grew exponentially in 3 years that decimated our elk... unfortunately no, however nice that would be to blame it on. (also I'm feeling for the blue mountain elk herd cause I could see that becoming more of an issue than it already has.) The fact is that the bear population which likely has the most impact on elk calves in our three main herds has likely stayed the same in yakima and colockum for the past 20 years (most of those years these herds were well above objective). The blues have likely had a noticeable impact because people were use to bear depredation but as wolves began to prey on elk the impact starts to become noticeable. I am all for liberalizing predator hunting as I believe this state has an abundance, anything to help out the animals and our opportunity to chase them. However, people learn to live with them until they feel like they start to have to much of an impact. How many people do you know who hate and complain about predators went out and put the time and effort into tagging two bears last year in the place that impacted their wildlife the most...? If you know someone that's great but that opportunity was liberalized and I bet most people went on with their lives.
2.) Was it natives... again I don't have any data on native harvest but I will look into it. The problem I have is that these herds were over objective if not at objective for 16 to 17 of the last 20 years... Were natives not hunting all those years? Oh they were, the must have just been doing it less... because it seems awfully convenient that all of a sudden they all banded together to destroy ( in reality we are actually only 800 animals below objective in the Yakima Herd, 100 under in the colockum, and 800 in the blues. Honestly the Blues concerns me but I have a strong feeling the other two will recover in no time. The are nowhere near destroyed, and the conservative nature of the WDFW and what I find to be their inaccurate surveying techniques in yakima and colockum have led to decreased opportunity. This isn't even the worst thing since I would rather us recover our elk than continue to over harvest. My concern is for opportunity compared to 2014 prior to any out of the ordinary biological stressors. Again I have the data to back this up.
3.) So what was the main reasons you ask... so we've already highlighted a drought in 2015. What does that do? Makes it more difficult for elk to put on weight prior to winter especially younger calves and 1.5 year old elk. Then you follow that up with 2 hard winters in a row. That alone would've had an impact. But wait what was interesting about 2015... Just look at the pictures I have attached. That years harvest in district 8 was anywhere from 500 to 900 antlerless elk higher than previous harvests. What happens when you harvest cows, they don't get to have their babies which affects calf recruitment in turn affecting the herds composition and health. These two main reasons impacted our herds in Washington, all while the continuous likely non changing stressors of predators, native harvest, etc... continued to happen. But when you have over objective elk herds for 16 out of 20 years and some factors were present all along while others weren't you better start looking there... And since I believe this is the main reason we are in our current situation I believe changing management techniques would have huge effects on herd health and lasting hunter opportunity because when they changed the regulation 26 years ago it definitely had impacts.
If you get on here and want to rage about how the natives or predators kill everything, I just want you to know they didn't show up just as our herds went into decline. They have been here all along. I am just doing the best with the hand I was dealt. If you'd rather continue to complain on a forum about things very much less in your control have fun that's you're right but no at the end of the day no positives are coming from it. I'm probably moving away soon to go enjoy opportunity in other states that I'm pretty sure have predators/natives but still manage to give their residents quality experiences throughout the year. In that time, I'd like to help out the people that have to stay here. If you think that those comments got to me and I'm sitting here raging your wrong, I just wanted to counter argue a point that seems to have come up a lot. If you post about natives after this good job, nothing constructive was added to the conversation :tup:
In the last 5 years or less, the native hunting has went from a sustenance hunt for many natives to a massive kill off for profit by a few. It has decimated the elk herds in general and the predator problem has taken its toll. Put that with a couple of bad winters and you have a recipe for destruction. That is why you see so many disenchanted folks on the forum. Anyone that has hunted elk in this state for 20 years plus has seen it go in the toilet. Yes, there are a few spots that are not as affected as others , but in general it has taken its toll. You will see it in the MASSIVE decline in cow and big bull permit numbers in the Yakima, Clockum, and Blue's herds. You will also see it in the decreased harvest percentages in our state. Its a simple fact that a few natives that have a new recent nation wide booming elk jerky business and the huge increase in the value of a mature 6x6 set of elk horns has taken a huge impact on the masses. Yes I agree with a lot of folks on here when they say "that there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it". I hate to think that I agree with some on here that think we should have the same seasons as the natives have, but what is to be done??? It is the only thing that would probably EVENTUALLY (but man would it be disastrous) fix the problem. But just like the natives never being brought under control, neither would WDFW ever agree to the seasons or reasoning behind it. In the long term, we are screwed. There is really no other way to look at it. That is really sad! And everyone is wondering why it is getting harder to get a decent tag in Montana and Wyoming now. Its because the Washington hunters that actually want an elk hunt instead of a fall camping trip are moving on and out of Washington.
Post by: stw on June 02, 2020, 07:11:25 AM
You won't see the tribes , wolves, cougars crying they all be eat elk.
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 07:14:55 AM
For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Post by: Cougartail on June 02, 2020, 07:37:34 AM
Makes perfect sense to me..
Post by: Skillet on June 02, 2020, 07:41:41 AM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
Post by: Fishmaker57 on June 02, 2020, 07:42:42 AM
I guess I'm not on here enough, but the amount of responses about natives hunting has been astounding. To dvolmer I would say you've disenchanted your misfortunes with a factor that I doubt is the main one when talking about rocky mountain elk herd declines. Do I think native impact is non-existent... no. But there were a lot of controllable things that happened in 2015,16, and 17 that were the main factors for the fact that our elk have been in decline. Again do I think these things I'm gonna list off had no impact... no but they are external factors that sportsman look to blame vs looking at the establishment that is managing the elk and our input as hunters.
1.)Was it predators that grew exponentially in 3 years that decimated our elk... unfortunately no, however nice that would be to blame it on. (also I'm feeling for the blue mountain elk herd cause I could see that becoming more of an issue than it already has.) The fact is that the bear population which likely has the most impact on elk calves in our three main herds has likely stayed the same in yakima and colockum for the past 20 years (most of those years these herds were well above objective). The blues have likely had a noticeable impact because people were use to bear depredation but as wolves began to prey on elk the impact starts to become noticeable. I am all for liberalizing predator hunting as I believe this state has an abundance, anything to help out the animals and our opportunity to chase them. However, people learn to live with them until they feel like they start to have to much of an impact. How many people do you know who hate and complain about predators went out and put the time and effort into tagging two bears last year in the place that impacted their wildlife the most...? If you know someone that's great but that opportunity was liberalized and I bet most people went on with their lives.
2.) Was it natives... again I don't have any data on native harvest but I will look into it. The problem I have is that these herds were over objective if not at objective for 16 to 17 of the last 20 years... Were natives not hunting all those years? Oh they were, the must have just been doing it less... because it seems awfully convenient that all of a sudden they all banded together to destroy ( in reality we are actually only 800 animals below objective in the Yakima Herd, 100 under in the colockum, and 800 in the blues. Honestly the Blues concerns me but I have a strong feeling the other two will recover in no time. The are nowhere near destroyed, and the conservative nature of the WDFW and what I find to be their inaccurate surveying techniques in yakima and colockum have led to decreased opportunity. This isn't even the worst thing since I would rather us recover our elk than continue to over harvest. My concern is for opportunity compared to 2014 prior to any out of the ordinary biological stressors. Again I have the data to back this up.
3.) So what was the main reasons you ask... so we've already highlighted a drought in 2015. What does that do? Makes it more difficult for elk to put on weight prior to winter especially younger calves and 1.5 year old elk. Then you follow that up with 2 hard winters in a row. That alone would've had an impact. But wait what was interesting about 2015... Just look at the pictures I have attached. That years harvest in district 8 was anywhere from 500 to 900 antlerless elk higher than previous harvests. What happens when you harvest cows, they don't get to have their babies which affects calf recruitment in turn affecting the herds composition and health. These two main reasons impacted our herds in Washington, all while the continuous likely non changing stressors of predators, native harvest, etc... continued to happen. But when you have over objective elk herds for 16 out of 20 years and some factors were present all along while others weren't you better start looking there... And since I believe this is the main reason we are in our current situation I believe changing management techniques would have huge effects on herd health and lasting hunter opportunity because when they changed the regulation 26 years ago it definitely had impacts.
If you get on here and want to rage about how the natives or predators kill everything, I just want you to know they didn't show up just as our herds went into decline. They have been here all along. I am just doing the best with the hand I was dealt. If you'd rather continue to complain on a forum about things very much less in your control have fun that's you're right but no at the end of the day no positives are coming from it. I'm probably moving away soon to go enjoy opportunity in other states that I'm pretty sure have predators/natives but still manage to give their residents quality experiences throughout the year. In that time, I'd like to help out the people that have to stay here. If you think that those comments got to me and I'm sitting here raging your wrong, I just wanted to counter argue a point that seems to have come up a lot. If you post about natives after this good job, nothing constructive was added to the conversation :tup:
In the last 5 years or less, the native hunting has went from a sustenance hunt for many natives to a massive kill off for profit by a few. It has decimated the elk herds in general and the predator problem has taken its toll. Put that with a couple of bad winters and you have a recipe for destruction. That is why you see so many disenchanted folks on the forum. Anyone that has hunted elk in this state for 20 years plus has seen it go in the toilet. Yes, there are a few spots that are not as affected as others , but in general it has taken its toll. You will see it in the MASSIVE decline in cow and big bull permit numbers in the Yakima, Clockum, and Blue's herds. You will also see it in the decreased harvest percentages in our state. Its a simple fact that a few natives that have a new recent nation wide booming elk jerky business and the huge increase in the value of a mature 6x6 set of elk horns has taken a huge impact on the masses. Yes I agree with a lot of folks on here when they say "that there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it". I hate to think that I agree with some on here that think we should have the same seasons as the natives have, but what is to be done??? It is the only thing that would probably EVENTUALLY (but man would it be disastrous) fix the problem. But just like the natives never being brought under control, neither would WDFW ever agree to the seasons or reasoning behind it. In the long term, we are screwed. There is really no other way to look at it. That is really sad! And everyone is wondering why it is getting harder to get a decent tag in Montana and Wyoming now. Its because the Washington hunters that actually want an elk hunt instead of a fall camping trip are moving on and out of Washington.
I agree with many of the points made here; there are multiple reasons for declining herds, but the causative agent in all is...LACK OF MANAGEMENT!!!! Predators; completely in the control of WDFW. Wolves are a sticky issue, with Federal rules to deal with, but in Eastern Washington, WDFW could push for further de-listings and control measures....if the managed the resource as charged. Bears and Cats: completely in WDFW's control. Management objectives for both species is far above targets in multiple areas, open the limit up to control the populations. Obviously baiting and hounds would help tremendously, but we all know the liberals will never allow that to happen.
Tribal hunting: WDFW has the ability to do several things to manage this; close WDFW lands to vehicles, work with DNR to do the same in areas where further management is needed to obtain objectives; conservation closures: WDFW has the ability to declare these types of management closures to protect the resources.
Winter kill: again, conservation closures and road closures in areas hardest hit. Volunteer feeding programs: again, completely in the control of WDFW, but resisted due to notion that this actually does more harm than good. No science to back up these claims, just the newer, book smart Biologists who know nothing of the history of programs like this.
We hunters are faced with a very complex problem, that WDFW tries it's best to ignore, because making a decision that is viewed as controversial is not in their credo. Their job is to manage the resource; not for the public, not for the Tribes, but for the good of the resource; something they have forgotten long ago. As sportsmen (and women), we need to get organized. Easy thing to say, much harder to do. There are literally hundreds of sports groups in Washington, with thousands of members; each speaking on their individual issues. It doesn't really matter if each groups issue is deer, elk, turkeys, pheasants, ducks, fish......the bottom line is lack of management by WDFW.
If all these groups were invited to a summit, where thousands of people could gather and develop a charter (with signatures) that outlined the mandate for true, science based management, maybe we could get the politicians to listen. Recognizing that this mandate would be restricted to only issues within WDFW's control, we could make a difference. We can't waste time on federal and ESA topics; that dog won't hunt. There are a myriad of issues that is within their control, if forced to manage!
This state benefits from millions of dollars in tax revenue from hunting and fishing, but the politicians have never fully recognized the full impact, and therefore only apportion less than 1% of the general fund to natural resource. This can change, and must if we intend on saving our fish and wildlife from the agency that has contributed to driving the resource into the ground....all due to a LACK OF MANAGEMENT!!
Ok.....off my soapbox....for now!
Post by: jstone on June 02, 2020, 07:49:11 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2020, 08:31:48 AM
In the last 5 years or less, the native hunting has went from a sustenance hunt for many natives to a massive kill off for profit by a few. It has decimated the elk herds in general and the predator problem has taken its toll. Put that with a couple of bad winters and you have a recipe for destruction. That is why you see so many disenchanted folks on the forum. Anyone that has hunted elk in this state for 20 years plus has seen it go in the toilet. Yes, there are a few spots that are not as affected as others , but in general it has taken its toll. You will see it in the MASSIVE decline in cow and big bull permit numbers in the Yakima, Clockum, and Blue's herds. You will also see it in the decreased harvest percentages in our state. Its a simple fact that a few natives that have a new recent nation wide booming elk jerky business and the huge increase in the value of a mature 6x6 set of elk horns has taken a huge impact on the masses. Yes I agree with a lot of folks on here when they say "that there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it". I hate to think that I agree with some on here that think we should have the same seasons as the natives have, but what is to be done??? It is the only thing that would probably EVENTUALLY (but man would it be disastrous) fix the problem. But just like the natives never being brought under control, neither would WDFW ever agree to the seasons or reasoning behind it. In the long term, we are screwed. There is really no other way to look at it. That is really sad! And everyone is wondering why it is getting harder to get a decent tag in Montana and Wyoming now. Its because the Washington hunters that actually want an elk hunt instead of a fall camping trip are moving on and out of Washington.100% true! What will happen I think, especially with the support of many on here, is it will go to draw only! And the false sense of draw only helping will just mean less hunting and no increase in herds.
Post by: vandeman17 on June 02, 2020, 09:09:23 AM
In the last 5 years or less, the native hunting has went from a sustenance hunt for many natives to a massive kill off for profit by a few. It has decimated the elk herds in general and the predator problem has taken its toll. Put that with a couple of bad winters and you have a recipe for destruction. That is why you see so many disenchanted folks on the forum. Anyone that has hunted elk in this state for 20 years plus has seen it go in the toilet. Yes, there are a few spots that are not as affected as others , but in general it has taken its toll. You will see it in the MASSIVE decline in cow and big bull permit numbers in the Yakima, Clockum, and Blue's herds. You will also see it in the decreased harvest percentages in our state. Its a simple fact that a few natives that have a new recent nation wide booming elk jerky business and the huge increase in the value of a mature 6x6 set of elk horns has taken a huge impact on the masses. Yes I agree with a lot of folks on here when they say "that there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it". I hate to think that I agree with some on here that think we should have the same seasons as the natives have, but what is to be done??? It is the only thing that would probably EVENTUALLY (but man would it be disastrous) fix the problem. But just like the natives never being brought under control, neither would WDFW ever agree to the seasons or reasoning behind it. In the long term, we are screwed. There is really no other way to look at it. That is really sad! And everyone is wondering why it is getting harder to get a decent tag in Montana and Wyoming now. Its because the Washington hunters that actually want an elk hunt instead of a fall camping trip are moving on and out of Washington.100% true! What will happen I think, especially with the support of many on here, is it will go to draw only! And the false sense of draw only helping will just mean less hunting and no increase in herds.
Until the natives that hunt these areas actually track and report their harvest, its all speculation. I am a believer in starting out with a list of many variables that could be effecting elk numbers and then trying to chip away at them through facts and data. Many of the proposed factors are quantifiable to a certain extent through surveys, studies etc but the Native Harvest aspect is the big unknown and until that can be somewhat accurately factored in, I don't know what the best option is.
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 09:12:02 AM
Reduce our take to produce larger bulls so the Yakama's have bigger horns to sell on the Rez.
Makes perfect sense to me..
Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 09:19:46 AM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
I'm going to refer to draw only states. In states where it is draw only people aren't giving up there chance to go out and the woods they just do it as a family group around the few people who drew. They get to focus on helping that person and more often those individuals are successful. The success rates for spike hunting is so low that it is realistic that someone only kills a 1 spike every 20 years. If you could give people the chance to hunt branch bulls 2-4 times in that time period they would likely harvest more elk and more pounds of meat in the long run. Cleaning up the draws would also make antlerless draws easier to get so you could fill in the other times with that or bull category tag. The system could be reworked to provide "more opportunity" while not offering tags to everyone every year. I know its hard to think about in an area that has had OTC hunting for the existence of these herds in sustainable numbers. The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.
Post by: Skillet on June 02, 2020, 01:26:20 PM
The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.
A little bit patronizing, don't you think? I'm not thinking you get to decide what a quality, or better, experience for everybody else is. People can camp year-round. Why let them hunt elk at all then?
No matter how you try to characterize it, you're trying to disenfranchise people who don't participate in the draws, because they could go OTC every year. By going to draw-only, you're going to tell all those people that the system they've enjoyed for 20+ years is no longer available to them. They're basically never going to get to hunt elk again, because of the huge glut of points holders that would have a huge relative draw advantage. Young hunter recruitment will plummet. But, hey - you'll get a marginally better chance at a quality tag every 5-10 years.
No thank you, I cannot get on board with your idea of "quality" for a select few at the cost of a treasured fall tradition for everyone.
Post by: ribka on June 02, 2020, 01:53:02 PM
but as mentioned a lot of cash to be made by the tribal hunting of bulls and antler sales.
Reduce our take to produce larger bulls so the Yakama's have bigger horns to sell on the Rez.
Makes perfect sense to me..
Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 02, 2020, 02:05:45 PM
:yeah:The last thing I want to do is get less people out in the woods but public land doesn't close during hunting season so whether you decide to go for OTC opportunities somewhere else in the state or just scout with family and help others with tags in years you don't draw its a sacrifice that can better the whole system.
A little bit patronizing, don't you think? I'm not thinking you get to decide what a quality, or better, experience for everybody else is. People can camp year-round. Why let them hunt elk at all then?
No matter how you try to characterize it, you're trying to disenfranchise people who don't participate in the draws, because they could go OTC every year. By going to draw-only, you're going to tell all those people that the system they've enjoyed for 20+ years is no longer available to them. They're basically never going to get to hunt elk again, because of the huge glut of points holders that would have a huge relative draw advantage. Young hunter recruitment will plummet. But, hey - you'll get a marginally better chance at a quality tag every 5-10 years.
No thank you, I cannot get on board with your idea of "quality" for a select few at the cost of a treasured fall tradition for everyone.
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2020, 02:15:11 PM
Post by: Magnum_Willys on June 02, 2020, 02:19:36 PM
Moving to draw only wouldn't reduce take it would just transfer the harvest of spikes into older age class elk. The 10 year average of total antlered harvest for quality herds is 1234 bulls. If you divide that by the average 7 year success rate of 28.5% of special hunts then you get 4330 tags. This would be the average amount of tags available keeping harvest the exact same if moved to a draw only system and all of those tags are for a 3 point minimum bull or brow tine restriction. I don't know about you but that change alone would reduce hunters competing in the woods making the experience truly quality and clean up the draw application pools tremendously. Pair this with a 3 year waiting period after you draw and you'll get people drawing tags on the regular.
I like it ! :tup:
Post by: Colville on June 02, 2020, 02:21:26 PM
District 8 is the heart of E-WA elk. Hunt stats are a bit awkward because they don't contain all the info you might want to see. However, ALL of the 2019 special permit, Modern/Archery/Muzzle for District 8 contained 272 tags (not including the special private lands elk areas). The success on those tags 115 Antlered bulls. Now they've been cooking books for a long time and know that the take is a fraction of what's offered in permits. The permits offered aren't the # available to be killed, those are the amount of hunters you can allow, knowing you'll get a smallish percentage who are successful.
In the same unit another 16,200 people hunted the general season, killing an additional 535 bulls (mostly spikes and one by 2's etc). There may be some branch bulls considered here from other special classes, disabled etc. These bulls weren't taken on a special permit. That puts bulls for harvest at about 650 between general and permit.
272 people killed 115 Branch Bulls on permit.
16,200 killed 535 spikes mostly, and kill the vast majority that exist.
If everyone that's allowed to hunt is allowed to kill a branch bull, how many can hunt? I direct you to that 272/115 ratio above. The only reason 16200 hunters didn't kill vastly more, like the special permit folks, is because they essentially kill almost all the spikes that are in the crop each year. I can't believe spikes are harder to hunt that branch bulls and so it looks like something like 3 or 4 to one is the ratio of hunters you can allow to pursue bulls and keep this kind of survival population. Say that's off, and you can afford 5 hunters per killed bull (including spikes and ignoring the fact that vastly more branch bulls will be killed).
5 x 650 = 3250 hunters. If we have 16,200 hunters, that's hunting bulls every 5 years.
If the herds were declining, this years # of permits would make it closer to 6+ years. We are not going to be able to hunt every other year, or every 3 years if draw only is instituted. not to mention that you will have to buy a license and permit EVERY YEAR you don't hunt to enter. Revenue has to be kept static, otherwise the cost to hunt when you do get the chance has to increase 500%.
Bulls are Finite. There's no way to get enough of them with our habitat to change the system and increase hunting opportunity. Opportunity being defined as being allowed to hunt, not only being allowed to hunt bulls. I suspect WDFW would opine that this kind of draw system would be able to let far fewer hunters than I suggest as they all target branch bulls and the negative effects on breeding that result.
Anyhow, these suggestions are never accompanied by any kill data. There's no way to have your bulls and kill them too.
Post by: Special T on June 02, 2020, 02:55:09 PM
The math does not work out.
District 8 is the heart of E-WA elk. Hunt stats are a bit awkward because they don't contain all the info you might want to see. However, ALL of the 2019 special permit, Modern/Archery/Muzzle for District 8 contained 272 tags (not including the special private lands elk areas). The success on those tags 115 Antlered bulls. Now they've been cooking books for a long time and know that the take is a fraction of what's offered in permits. The permits offered aren't the # available to be killed, those are the amount of hunters you can allow, knowing you'll get a smallish percentage who are successful.
In the same unit another 16,200 people hunted the general season, killing an additional 535 bulls (mostly spikes and one by 2's etc). There may be some branch bulls considered here from other special classes, disabled etc. These bulls weren't taken on a special permit. That puts bulls for harvest at about 650 between general and permit.
272 people killed 115 Branch Bulls on permit.
16,200 killed 535 spikes mostly, and kill the vast majority that exist.
If everyone that's allowed to hunt is allowed to kill a branch bull, how many can hunt? I direct you to that 272/115 ratio above. The only reason 16200 hunters didn't kill vastly more, like the special permit folks, is because they essentially kill almost all the spikes that are in the crop each year. I can't believe spikes are harder to hunt that branch bulls and so it looks like something like 3 or 4 to one is the ratio of hunters you can allow to pursue bulls and keep this kind of survival population. Say that's off, and you can afford 5 hunters per killed bull (including spikes and ignoring the fact that vastly more branch bulls will be killed).
5 x 650 = 3250 hunters. If we have 16,200 hunters, that's hunting bulls every 5 years.
If the herds were declining, this years # of permits would make it closer to 6+ years. We are not going to be able to hunt every other year, or every 3 years if draw only is instituted. not to mention that you will have to buy a license and permit EVERY YEAR you don't hunt to enter. Revenue has to be kept static, otherwise the cost to hunt when you do get the chance has to increase 500%.
Bulls are Finite. There's no way to get enough of them with our habitat to change the system and increase hunting opportunity. Opportunity being defined as being allowed to hunt, not only being allowed to hunt bulls. I suspect WDFW would opine that this kind of draw system would be able to let far fewer hunters than I suggest as they all target branch bulls and the negative effects on breeding that result.
Anyhow, these suggestions are never accompanied by any kill data. There's no way to have your bulls and kill them too.
Good job on bringing this into the light
Post by: 3dvapor on June 02, 2020, 04:35:18 PM
Post by: whacker1 on June 02, 2020, 05:02:05 PM
Post by: Buzz2401 on June 02, 2020, 05:18:45 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 02, 2020, 07:00:20 PM
Yep like everyone is going to say tribes will shoot them all anyways. There’s no point in anything we do management wise because they don’t follow any of our restrictions. Anything we do to try to increase our opportunity will be taken advantage of by them long before we are ever able to reap the rewards. And as all will say this is the one group in the entire world that has inalienable rights no matter what. So I guess I would say I agree let’s just open it up to the same exact “season”as the tribes. Give it a year or two we will have almost no elk and they will be knocking on WDFW’s door to try to work with them.Very good insight!!!! you nailed it!
Agree :yeah:
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 02, 2020, 07:12:44 PM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
TRUTH
Post by: dvolmer on June 02, 2020, 07:24:07 PM
This will never be fixedBingo!!! You nailed it! Sad but absolutely true!! It will go up and down like the stock market. Some years a little better than others but over the long haul it will go downward if nothing is done. Being that WDFW has no control over native hunting and predators, and that their desire for funds is more than their desire for management, it will as you said, "This will never be fixed"!
In other states like Montana and Wyoming, natives that hunt off of the reservations have to follow the same rules as the rest of the people. In those states they are letting people hunt and trap wolves along with using dogs to hunt cougars and bears to keep the predators under control. Don't blame WDFW for this, it is the liberal agenda, tree-hugger's, and Liberal judges that will never let this happen in our state. If they weren't making a mint off of our revenue for the general fund and their social programs, hunting would probably already be outlawed in our state. King County makes all the rules in this state and it is full of fruits and nuts.
Post by: jstone on June 02, 2020, 08:15:42 PM
Post by: rtspring on June 02, 2020, 08:43:05 PM
Hell no to draw only!
Post by: Backstraps on June 02, 2020, 08:55:27 PM
:yeah:This will never be fixedBingo!!! You nailed it! Sad but absolutely true!! It will go up and down like the stock market. Some years a little better than others but over the long haul it will go downward if nothing is done. Being that WDFW has no control over native hunting and predators, and that their desire for funds is more than their desire for management, it will as you said, "This will never be fixed"!
In other states like Montana and Wyoming, natives that hunt off of the reservations have to follow the same rules as the rest of the people. In those states they are letting people hunt and trap wolves along with using dogs to hunt cougars and bears to keep the predators under control. Don't blame WDFW for this, it is the liberal agenda, tree-hugger's, and Liberal judges that will never let this happen in our state. If they weren't making a mint off of our revenue for the general fund and their social programs, hunting would probably already be outlawed in our state. King County makes all the rules in this state and it is full of fruits and nuts.
Post by: donsk16 on June 03, 2020, 07:48:59 AM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
Skillet - you are spot on about this. Hunting is about the experience!
Not everyone who hunts is only about killing the biggest animal they can - for a large percentage of hunters the experience of the hunt outweighs the size of the animal they kill. If you change to a draw only system, you will permanently lose hunters. Most of us grew up as kids going to hunting camp every year carrying around a bb gun - imagine trying to get our youth into hunting only getting to go to hunting camp every few years when you draw?
My oldest is probably a couple years away from starting to join me and my hunting partner in the woods and I can tell you that for me, I am going to value years of time and traditions that I will have with my children more than I will killing a big bull one year.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 03, 2020, 09:07:12 AM
Post by: buckfvr on June 03, 2020, 09:25:08 AM
Many of us older guys can remember the proverbial "good ol' days", that are long gone and wont be coming back. :twocents:
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 10:28:20 AM
The math does not work out.
District 8 is the heart of E-WA elk. Hunt stats are a bit awkward because they don't contain all the info you might want to see. However, ALL of the 2019 special permit, Modern/Archery/Muzzle for District 8 contained 272 tags (not including the special private lands elk areas). The success on those tags 115 Antlered bulls. Now they've been cooking books for a long time and know that the take is a fraction of what's offered in permits. The permits offered aren't the # available to be killed, those are the amount of hunters you can allow, knowing you'll get a smallish percentage who are successful.
In the same unit another 16,200 people hunted the general season, killing an additional 535 bulls (mostly spikes and one by 2's etc). There may be some branch bulls considered here from other special classes, disabled etc. These bulls weren't taken on a special permit. That puts bulls for harvest at about 650 between general and permit.
272 people killed 115 Branch Bulls on permit.
16,200 killed 535 spikes mostly, and kill the vast majority that exist.
If everyone that's allowed to hunt is allowed to kill a branch bull, how many can hunt? I direct you to that 272/115 ratio above. The only reason 16200 hunters didn't kill vastly more, like the special permit folks, is because they essentially kill almost all the spikes that are in the crop each year. I can't believe spikes are harder to hunt that branch bulls and so it looks like something like 3 or 4 to one is the ratio of hunters you can allow to pursue bulls and keep this kind of survival population. Say that's off, and you can afford 5 hunters per killed bull (including spikes and ignoring the fact that vastly more branch bulls will be killed).
5 x 650 = 3250 hunters. If we have 16,200 hunters, that's hunting bulls every 5 years.
If the herds were declining, this years # of permits would make it closer to 6+ years. We are not going to be able to hunt every other year, or every 3 years if draw only is instituted. not to mention that you will have to buy a license and permit EVERY YEAR you don't hunt to enter. Revenue has to be kept static, otherwise the cost to hunt when you do get the chance has to increase 500%.
Bulls are Finite. There's no way to get enough of them with our habitat to change the system and increase hunting opportunity. Opportunity being defined as being allowed to hunt, not only being allowed to hunt bulls. I suspect WDFW would opine that this kind of draw system would be able to let far fewer hunters than I suggest as they all target branch bulls and the negative effects on breeding that result.
Anyhow, these suggestions are never accompanied by any kill data. There's no way to have your bulls and kill them too.
I believe you misunderstood much of my data. I first took the harvest for both district 3 and 8 and averaged it over 10 years. Between OTC and Special tags harvest on avg. 1234 bulls a year. Last year it was much lower. I also took the average success of special permit holders over the past 7 years which worked out to be 28.5%. This is likely slightly off due to non-reporting but I doubt by much because non reporters aren't all killing elk and they aren't all being unsuccessful. For the most part the reporting is close enough that this number isn't far off.
Last year was strange because it was such low tag allocation. The average special tag allocation is 1255 tags across these districts but last year was 508. What happens when you give out less tags... you're success rates increase. In fact it went up to 38.4% compared to 28.5%. Also the harvest was ~800 across the two districts much lower than the average of 1234. Got to look at averages not a very out of the normal 2019. It's not gonna stay there forever.
If you did in fact give a period for spikes to escape in a draw only system and didn't give out a huge amount of tags right off the bat to stratify age class, 4 years down the road you have MORE BULLS. Its not impossible to get more elk or more bulls, I don't know where you gathered that, but then after you're bull age class is stratified you can begin to harvest 20-25% of bulls without killing every mature one out there. Harvest distributed from age classes 2.5-11 isn't gonna kill every mature elk out there.
Spikes get slaughtered because so many hunters are in the field at time when weather is pushing elk into lower countries and the spikes are following the cow herds to winter range. It's a lot easier to kill spikes during a late rifle than it is to kill 2+ year old bulls bachelored up in some nasty hidy hole.
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 10:32:46 AM
I prefer the Arizona model of management. Its been the only place ive been where there was a balance of predators and prey. Saw wolves, bear and cougar and couldnt sleep at night because of all the bugling bulls all around camp in the distance. The state truly knows how to manage there wildlife resource. I can just imagine what this state could be like if the same officials took over. Especially with just sound management as the only agenda. I guarantee the spike only hunts would be the first gone and the hound hunting would immediately be put back in place.
I think you're on the right track for sure!! I imagine the culture in Arizona fish and game is different but in the end biologist's get into wildlife management for similar reasons. Washington for whatever reason has been difficult for the WDFW to get a grasp on and manage for animal health and making everyone happy. But making an area draw only has huge effects on management. You see it in every state that has these systems. OTC is wild and erratic and only states with huge amounts of habitat and animals can prevent OTC from being destructive. Washington is right on the fence between these two types of states and hunters don't want to give up privileges they've had for a while.
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 10:36:30 AM
5400 elk killed in Washington by 54,400 non tribal licensed hunters in 2019. Not sure how you increase harvest rates without either reducing hunter numbers(draw only or maybe alternating years) or increasing the number of elk to harvest(reduce predators, poaching and tribal hunting). If you went to any bull or 3 point or better seasons sure the harvest rates would probably go up for a year or two but then they would just fall back to where they are now. I personally would like to see the state get rid of the multiple choice permit draws, you should have to put in for one unit and one species( maybe withe the exception of OIL's).
I like where your head is at, but so many people think that changing the harvest will decimate older age classes. Yes if it was an OTC harvest of 3 point minimum on the east side this would happen in a heartbeat but if its draw only (the only way you could make this the regulation) the department sets the harvest. If you don't over harvest bulls you don't destroy age class and stratification. Just something to think about. I understand the west side harvest is dominated by 2 & 3 year old bulls but that's not how draw only systems work...
s
Post by: MR5x5 on June 03, 2020, 10:55:13 AM
I get the intention is to "do something positive" by why reward incompetence?
My basic question is why would anybody want to give what would effectively be unlimited power to the very people who mismanaged this and many other situations across the state into their current sad states of affair? Mindboggling??
There are any number of other successful state models to work from that ensure opportunity for all, but that is not WDFWs way. WDFW prefers to mess things up their own special way!
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 01:09:58 PM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
Skillet - you are spot on about this. Hunting is about the experience!
Not everyone who hunts is only about killing the biggest animal they can - for a large percentage of hunters the experience of the hunt outweighs the size of the animal they kill. If you change to a draw only system, you will permanently lose hunters. Most of us grew up as kids going to hunting camp every year carrying around a bb gun - imagine trying to get our youth into hunting only getting to go to hunting camp every few years when you draw?
My oldest is probably a couple years away from starting to join me and my hunting partner in the woods and I can tell you that for me, I am going to value years of time and traditions that I will have with my children more than I will killing a big bull one year.
I understand your concern and even though it may be hard for you to believe it's a main motivation for doing this. Someone mentioned earlier that if it went to OTC opportunities for youth hunters. There is some potential issues with this as it may not have the capacity to support such a harvest and many hunters would exploit this and hunt through their children. However if it is sustainable I would support it. Alternative options would be to allocate a higher percentage of antlerless and bull harvest to youth hunters and maybe into a category where hunters who have never purchased a hunting license (in any state) can compete in. The problem I see with the system as it currently sits is that going out and competing with the pumpkin army and minimal success may do more to hurt hunter initiation and keep the younger generations from continuing to hunt. Maybe we can't give them a tag every year but once every three years on a hunt where they have way more chance in harvesting an animal may do more keep youth hunters interested. I don't expect everyone to be out there for the same reason, and to be honest the experience and meat are the most important to me. However, from the beginning I have done everything in my power to get away from crowds and seeing more people than animals. This is a tall order in this state. I was lucky to be taken along on an elk hunt 6 years ago but all I saw was a band of cows running 4 ridges down, other than that it was people on every road and in every drainage. It was only when I went to a spot on my own the following week that I was able to see a bull bugle and push cows up the ridge at daybreak. That experience hooked me to the point of my obsession. The past few years I have mentored 4 people who had either never hunted or had been initiated and never returned for multiple reasons. I think mentoring new hunters is one of the most important issues out there, so I understand your concern. However I don't think removing an OTC bow and rifle hike is gonna spell the end for mentoring hunters. It may actually give a chance to these new hunters to draw a tag and have an experience that will stand out among all the unsuccessful trips. There might be the minority that have areas figured out and can guide their children to success, but if your protecting your own little resource that you have figured out while everyone else struggles, in the end that is not beneficial. Success reinforces hunting, of course there is some struggle involved to get to success but if its all struggle and no reward it may never stick...
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 01:12:56 PM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 01:14:43 PM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 01:18:19 PM
Also every one of these hunts was a grind, besides the whitetail taken out of a tree stand every hunt was multiple thousands of feet of elevation gain and loss, sleeping in the back country and grinding to be successful. None were shot from the side of the road... They may have been successful but trust me they suffered first.
Post by: Colville on June 04, 2020, 01:42:39 PM
year Permit Spike Hunters Statewide Elk Hunters
2013 226 665 19,752 68,572
2014 289 622 21,730
2015 280 800 22,582
2016 295 722 20,803
2017 276 382 19,187
2018 188 462 17,844
2019 115 535 16,445 54,474
Permit is bulls killed on permit, Spike is spikes and the other non special permit branch bulls killed general seasons(this is almost all spikes).
Permit hunters score someplace around 30% success rate. One has to believe that spikes aren't harder to hunt, so overall success on bulls would remain comparable. The low water point, about 650 combined bulls taken. High water 1080. Let's call 900 the average bulls available to harvest (declining with wolves?).
at a 4 to one ratio 25% success, you can let 3600 hunters go after them. Even on the lowest tag year ever, that's 4.5 years to hunt bulls. The math does not support the likelihood that you'll be hunting elk ever other year or every 3. If Branch bulls take the brunt as everyone looks at their one opportunity to get a "real" bull, then breeding will be harmed. Even if you let a year go by without spike hunting, they will just be taken out the next season. I do not see any reason to believe going to draw only can also mean hunting frequently.
As far as recruitment and opportunity? who's going to buy full cost licenses and permit apps every year... to not hunt? The revenue has to be neutral. They already keep moving the needle on licenses because we keep losing hunters. Otherwise you are going to have to charge $700 for the license on the year you do finally draw.
My fatherly experience is that if my son was not able to come to be in camp, cary a rifle, feel the anticipation and hunt.... that he'd have not continued to show up to just wait and see if 2 out of 10 guys with a tag show back up bloody tonight. My son didn't need to kill deer when he started... he needed to hunt them, with his dad. There's no legit way to set aside a big pool of the bulls just for youth "to recruit them". Hunters have been paying and investing for 20 years without hunting bulls and they aren't going to sit back and see 30% of the tags handed over to new hunters. AND, if you do.... the years to draw just went to 6 for an adult. My kids miss a lot of school time for sports, no way their mom would send them to miss school for a camp where they aren't getting to hunt anyway.
There's not enough habitat. Not enough wintering ground. Too many hunters in relative comparison. WHILE adding wolves to the mix. It's a pipe dream to think hunters can hunt bulls every three years, any bull, and keep 16,500 hunters paying for licenses and keep dads taking sons and daughters to a camp, during the school year... just to camp.
The only way this plan works, is that it in fact drives down hunter numbers. Fewer kids come in, many camps call it a day, many hunters say they won't pay $200 a year to not hunt elk. Then you can get down to every 3 years. There's just no way to keep the same hunter numbers 16K+, or even increase hunters, and hunt frequently. I do not believe you can maintain hunters, let alone recruit them, with every 3 to 4 years hunting. Right now about 13,000 hunters are willing to pay for the lotto ticket of a spike. What do you think that drops down to if they can't even buy lotto tickets?
Post by: Special T on June 04, 2020, 01:59:55 PM
Numbers for District 8, all the productive name brand units on the cascacde eastside.
year Permit Spike Hunters Statewide Elk Hunters
2013 226 665 19,752 68,572
2014 289 622 21,730
2015 280 800 22,582
2016 295 722 20,803
2017 276 382 19,187
2018 188 462 17,844
2019 115 535 16,445 54,474
Permit is bulls killed on permit, Spike is spikes and the other non special permit branch bulls killed general seasons(this is almost all spikes).
Permit hunters score someplace around 30% success rate. One has to believe that spikes aren't harder to hunt, so overall success on bulls would remain comparable. The low water point, about 650 combined bulls taken. High water 1080. Let's call 900 the average bulls available to harvest (declining with wolves?).
at a 4 to one ratio 25% success, you can let 3600 hunters go after them. Even on the lowest tag year ever, that's 4.5 years to hunt bulls. The math does not support the likelihood that you'll be hunting elk ever other year or every 3. If Branch bulls take the brunt as everyone looks at their one opportunity to get a "real" bull, then breeding will be harmed. Even if you let a year go by without spike hunting, they will just be taken out the next season. I do not see any reason to believe going to draw only can also mean hunting frequently.
As far as recruitment and opportunity? who's going to buy full cost licenses and permit apps every year... to not hunt? The revenue has to be neutral. They already keep moving the needle on licenses because we keep losing hunters. Otherwise you are going to have to charge $700 for the license on the year you do finally draw.
My fatherly experience is that if my son was not able to come to be in camp, cary a rifle, feel the anticipation and hunt.... that he'd have not continued to show up to just wait and see if 2 out of 10 guys with a tag show back up bloody tonight. My son didn't need to kill deer when he started... he needed to hunt them, with his dad. There's no legit way to set aside a big pool of the bulls just for youth "to recruit them". Hunters have been paying and investing for 20 years without hunting bulls and they aren't going to sit back and see 30% of the tags handed over to new hunters. AND, if you do.... the years to draw just went to 6 for an adult. My kids miss a lot of school time for sports, no way their mom would send them to miss school for a camp where they aren't getting to hunt anyway.
There's not enough habitat. Not enough wintering ground. Too many hunters in relative comparison. WHILE adding wolves to the mix. It's a pipe dream to think hunters can hunt bulls every three years, any bull, and keep 16,500 hunters paying for licenses and keep dads taking sons and daughters to a camp, during the school year... just to camp.
The only way this plan works, is that it in fact drives down hunter numbers. Fewer kids come in, many camps call it a day, many hunters say they won't pay $200 a year to not hunt elk. Then you can get down to every 3 years. There's just no way to keep the same hunter numbers 16K+, or even increase hunters, and hunt frequently. I do not believe you can maintain hunters, let alone recruit them, with every 3 to 4 years hunting. Right now about 13,000 hunters are willing to pay for the lotto ticket of a spike. What do you think that drops down to if they can't even buy lotto tickets?
This back of the napkin math is just too reasonable not to be understood.
Post by: grundy53 on June 04, 2020, 02:21:50 PM
Actually, the reason it's spike only is because they are the most likely to die from causes other than hunting. So by killing them you are actually less likely to effect the herd since a lot of the spikes killed by hunters were going to die anyway.For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: HUNT JR on June 04, 2020, 02:32:44 PM
Post by: Threewolves on June 04, 2020, 03:25:12 PM
Something needs to be done, the diminishing opportunity for quality and bull tags is depressing. But hooray, we get to go battle the masses for a spike where the overall success rate is dismal. I buy my tags every year and apply, but when it comes to actually hunting I go to other states. Yes, you wouldn't have a tag yourself every year. But, the odds would be much better that someone in your family/group would draw. You could still get the experience of the hunt even if you aren't the one who pulls the trigger.
I hear ya, but I don't want to depend on someone else drawing to (help) hunt either. I don't have family/group to hunt with, never really have, used to always work shift and the few folks that I have hunted with either don't anymore, to lazy, or have other things going on. I like being able to buy a tag every year.
Post by: HUNT JR on June 04, 2020, 03:33:01 PM
Post by: Miles on June 04, 2020, 05:43:36 PM
Post by: jstone on June 04, 2020, 06:09:29 PM
Post by: grundy53 on June 04, 2020, 06:19:09 PM
If we were to mainly change eastside elk to draw only, people who wanted a tag every year could still buy a westside elk tag. It is just excruciating to have such poor draw odds in order to have a decent hunt.That would be a good way to destroy elk hunting on the westside...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: BNAElkhntr on June 04, 2020, 06:46:40 PM
Post by: royalhntr on June 04, 2020, 07:30:15 PM
What if there was a branched antler quota, branch antlered season is done when the quota is filled. We all have a shot at those bulls every year. 15 or 20 years ago we didnt have the technology to get that information out there, now we do. The Bulls could be checked at stations or reported online. The department makes harvest numbers available as close to real time possible and gives 24 hrs notice if and when it's closing. If you don't get a branch bull you could still finish out the season hunting spikes.
Post by: grundy53 on June 04, 2020, 07:35:16 PM
I have 20 good years left of hunting the colockum and will never have a shot at a branch bull there unless something changes.There would be a lot of dead bulls opening day...
What if there was a branched antler quota, branch antlered season is done when the quota is filled. We all have a shot at those bulls every year. 15 or 20 years ago we didnt have the technology to get that information out there, now we do. The Bulls could be checked at stations or reported online. The department makes harvest numbers available as close to real time possible and gives 24 hrs notice if and when it's closing. If you don't get a branch bull you could still finish out the season hunting spikes.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 04, 2020, 08:15:11 PM
I have 20 good years left of hunting the colockum and will never have a shot at a branch bull there unless something changes.
What if there was a branched antler quota, branch antlered season is done when the quota is filled. We all have a shot at those bulls every year. 15 or 20 years ago we didnt have the technology to get that information out there, now we do. The Bulls could be checked at stations or reported online. The department makes harvest numbers available as close to real time possible and gives 24 hrs notice if and when it's closing. If you don't get a branch bull you could still finish out the season hunting spikes.
You have a shot at drawing that tag every year.
Post by: huntnphool on June 04, 2020, 08:17:38 PM
I have 20 good years left of hunting the colockum and will never have a shot at a branch bull there unless something changes.
What if there was a branched antler quota, branch antlered season is done when the quota is filled. We all have a shot at those bulls every year. 15 or 20 years ago we didnt have the technology to get that information out there, now we do. The Bulls could be checked at stations or reported online. The department makes harvest numbers available as close to real time possible and gives 24 hrs notice if and when it's closing. If you don't get a branch bull you could still finish out the season hunting spikes.
You have a shot at drawing that tag every year.
I have been telling myself that for decades. :chuckle:
Post by: BULLBLASTER on June 04, 2020, 08:26:19 PM
:chuckle:I have 20 good years left of hunting the colockum and will never have a shot at a branch bull there unless something changes.
What if there was a branched antler quota, branch antlered season is done when the quota is filled. We all have a shot at those bulls every year. 15 or 20 years ago we didnt have the technology to get that information out there, now we do. The Bulls could be checked at stations or reported online. The department makes harvest numbers available as close to real time possible and gives 24 hrs notice if and when it's closing. If you don't get a branch bull you could still finish out the season hunting spikes.
You have a shot at drawing that tag every year.
I have been telling myself that for decades. :chuckle:
Post by: villajac29 on June 04, 2020, 09:02:24 PM
Numbers for District 8, all the productive name brand units on the cascacde eastside.
year Permit Spike Hunters Statewide Elk Hunters
2013 226 665 19,752 68,572
2014 289 622 21,730
2015 280 800 22,582
2016 295 722 20,803
2017 276 382 19,187
2018 188 462 17,844
2019 115 535 16,445 54,474
Permit is bulls killed on permit, Spike is spikes and the other non special permit branch bulls killed general seasons(this is almost all spikes).
Permit hunters score someplace around 30% success rate. One has to believe that spikes aren't harder to hunt, so overall success on bulls would remain comparable. The low water point, about 650 combined bulls taken. High water 1080. Let's call 900 the average bulls available to harvest (declining with wolves?).
at a 4 to one ratio 25% success, you can let 3600 hunters go after them. Even on the lowest tag year ever, that's 4.5 years to hunt bulls. The math does not support the likelihood that you'll be hunting elk ever other year or every 3. If Branch bulls take the brunt as everyone looks at their one opportunity to get a "real" bull, then breeding will be harmed. Even if you let a year go by without spike hunting, they will just be taken out the next season. I do not see any reason to believe going to draw only can also mean hunting frequently.
As far as recruitment and opportunity? who's going to buy full cost licenses and permit apps every year... to not hunt? The revenue has to be neutral. They already keep moving the needle on licenses because we keep losing hunters. Otherwise you are going to have to charge $700 for the license on the year you do finally draw.
My fatherly experience is that if my son was not able to come to be in camp, cary a rifle, feel the anticipation and hunt.... that he'd have not continued to show up to just wait and see if 2 out of 10 guys with a tag show back up bloody tonight. My son didn't need to kill deer when he started... he needed to hunt them, with his dad. There's no legit way to set aside a big pool of the bulls just for youth "to recruit them". Hunters have been paying and investing for 20 years without hunting bulls and they aren't going to sit back and see 30% of the tags handed over to new hunters. AND, if you do.... the years to draw just went to 6 for an adult. My kids miss a lot of school time for sports, no way their mom would send them to miss school for a camp where they aren't getting to hunt anyway.
There's not enough habitat. Not enough wintering ground. Too many hunters in relative comparison. WHILE adding wolves to the mix. It's a pipe dream to think hunters can hunt bulls every three years, any bull, and keep 16,500 hunters paying for licenses and keep dads taking sons and daughters to a camp, during the school year... just to camp.
The only way this plan works, is that it in fact drives down hunter numbers. Fewer kids come in, many camps call it a day, many hunters say they won't pay $200 a year to not hunt elk. Then you can get down to every 3 years. There's just no way to keep the same hunter numbers 16K+, or even increase hunters, and hunt frequently. I do not believe you can maintain hunters, let alone recruit them, with every 3 to 4 years hunting. Right now about 13,000 hunters are willing to pay for the lotto ticket of a spike. What do you think that drops down to if they can't even buy lotto tickets?
Gonna probably be more napkin math on this response but I'll give it a go.
1. I didn't ever say that hunters would be guaranteed a hunt every 3 years although even with a waiting period there would likely be tags that archery hunters could apply for that they would have a decent chance of drawing their first year back after a waiting period. It would honestly depend on tag allocations and how effective other proposals would be in clearing out the application pools. Something to be considered if not a no point system would be a 25% preference to give the guys with max points 1/4th of the tags and the other 75% be random. Just another idea thrown out there.
2. I talked to a yakima biologist today who cited up to date data showing that not much centered around harvest or bull to cow ratios or even age distribution effects breeding. Apparently this is most highly correlated to feed quality and abundance so focusing on older bulls will most likely not effect breeding negatively. And since you would be protecting spikes from the previous season they would if not another bull breed the cows in some circumstances. I'm not saying we should go to system where age class is weighted to the front end but it doesn't "effect breeding" based on up to date studies and data compared to the reports in the 90s that led to the change in the first place.
3.This system would likely have to have a change with how Washington residents buy tags. Just about every other western state has you purchase a hunting license and tags separately. For Example say a license is $40, Elk tag is $35, deer tag $25 and bear and lion tags are 10 and 8. Just theoretical. You then mitigate an major losses for income from resident hunters and incentivize non resident to start applying as well. The state could set the non resident tag limit to 10% non guaranteed. So say there is 10 tags in a unit, that means a resident can only draw 1 max and if no nonresident draws it doesn't mean one is guaranteed to them. If the non-resident license is $150 more non residents will be apt to apply and that could potentially make up the difference. If you wanted to go a step further like Idaho you could allocate 10% non guaranteed of the OILs to non residents as well and make them pay the price of the license and tag upfront to prevent any old joe from applying and they would incentivize even more non residents in buying a license. The fact is there realistically has to be a system where revenue at the very least stays the same. There are work around's and conversations with other state could help us develop that model.
4. I understand your concerns about recruitment of youth hunters, its a very difficult topic to discuss. All I was doing was throwing out ideas. However this "Hunters have been paying and investing for 20 years without hunting bulls and they aren't going to sit back and see 30% of the tags handed over to new hunters. " is one of the reasons hunters shoot themselves in the foot is because they aren't willing to give their full support to recruiting new hunters. Obviously I have talked before about giving those guys a tag and how the fact those people (people applying for 20+ years and not drawing) exist is one of the reasons I started this whole discussion. But more importantly is keeping hunting a common and active part of society otherwise it has more and more likely hood of going away forever. Hunters back in the early 1900s didn't keep on hunting because it was their right and they weren't gonna give it up. They got together and rebuilt this countries deer and elk herds from near destruction in perpetuity for unborn generations. The politicians that created public land didn't say what can the land give us at this very moment and extract all of its resources. They set aside what could've very well been there's for the taking and protected them for generations after. We are those generations. Ok, off that soapbox. My point is that there is a way to keep getting kids out in the woods. Deer hunting is still very much OTC and whether or not muley's continue to be that way whitetail and blacktail opportunity are likely disappearing any time soon. Bear hunting is one of the best ways to get new hunters out in the woods and the best season is long before most school sports take place. That paired with turkeys, small game, and a youth tag every 3-4 years would be plenty to expose a youth. I say expose because retention is a real issue with hunting more than exposure is.
5. There is enough habitat and enough winter ground (for elk at least) because as far as the biologists and my experience goes elk were thriving prior to 2016. We were harvesting huge percentages of the herd and it was stable. Unfortunately that was a fragile system that was thrown off by environmental factors on top of predators, native and non-native harvest. Truth of the matter is complaints were few and far between 6 years ago compared to now. And you're right there is no way to keep allowing 16500 people hunt EVERY YEAR for 12000 elk a tiny fraction of which are legal harvest. Its over capacity... but as hunter numbers go up success rates go down so the fix in my mind is decrease the amount of people that can access these herds every year and there will be reward in the future. It won't be immediate but it will better than what we're doing now. Long term mindset has got to be what we start with from now on.
Post by: villajac29 on June 04, 2020, 09:06:34 PM
Actually, the reason it's spike only is because they are the most likely to die from causes other than hunting. So by killing them you are actually less likely to effect the herd since a lot of the spikes killed by hunters were going to die anyway.For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Where did you get this statement... If that was the case then all of the OTC units in Washington would have any bull to harvest from??? Yes 65% of them get killed a spike only general season and whats left behind escapes. But when they aren't targeted they don't randomly get killed. Most cougars would have a hell of a time taking down a spike and they spend most of the time with the herd anyway which does even more to protect them from predators. What else is left to kill them... Let me guess natives... They don't just keel over after there year of spikehood because they are dumb. Please provide the source of where this is being stated. I am very interested!
Post by: HUNT JR on June 04, 2020, 09:42:19 PM
If we were to mainly change eastside elk to draw only, people who wanted a tag every year could still buy a westside elk tag. It is just excruciating to have such poor draw odds in order to have a decent hunt.That would be a good way to destroy elk hunting on the westside...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I think some people would switch but I think a good amount would stay East side for the draws as odds increase substantially.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on June 05, 2020, 06:35:19 AM
Post by: grundy53 on June 05, 2020, 08:01:53 AM
Actually, the reason it's spike only is because they are the most likely to die from causes other than hunting. So by killing them you are actually less likely to effect the herd since a lot of the spikes killed by hunters were going to die anyway.For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Where did you get this statement... If that was the case then all of the OTC units in Washington would have any bull to harvest from??? Yes 65% of them get killed a spike only general season and whats left behind escapes. But when they aren't targeted they don't randomly get killed. Most cougars would have a hell of a time taking down a spike and they spend most of the time with the herd anyway which does even more to protect them from predators. What else is left to kill them... Let me guess natives... They don't just keel over after there year of spikehood because they are dumb. Please provide the source of where this is being stated. I am very interested!
A biologist talked about it on a podcast. I don't think most of the deaths would be from predation. I think they are more susceptible to winter kill and other forms of attrition. The young of any species have a lower survival rate than mature adults.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: villajac29 on June 05, 2020, 08:14:37 AM
Actually, the reason it's spike only is because they are the most likely to die from causes other than hunting. So by killing them you are actually less likely to effect the herd since a lot of the spikes killed by hunters were going to die anyway.For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Where did you get this statement... If that was the case then all of the OTC units in Washington would have any bull to harvest from??? Yes 65% of them get killed a spike only general season and whats left behind escapes. But when they aren't targeted they don't randomly get killed. Most cougars would have a hell of a time taking down a spike and they spend most of the time with the herd anyway which does even more to protect them from predators. What else is left to kill them... Let me guess natives... They don't just keel over after there year of spikehood because they are dumb. Please provide the source of where this is being stated. I am very interested!
A biologist talked about it on a podcast. I don't think most of the deaths would be from predation. I think they are more susceptible to winter kill and other forms of attrition. The young of any species have a lower survival rate than mature adults.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I would talk to the biologists in this state regarding winter kill susceptibility of spike bulls compared to older age class bulls. I would imagine they are slightly more susceptible in harder winters but I don’t think they are dying off in high enough numbers every year to support one harvest system over another. I could be wrong but I think after a year of escapement as calves they are very resilient to winter unless nutrition is subpar in the area.
Post by: grundy53 on June 05, 2020, 08:29:27 AM
I was just going off what a biologist said. It made sense to me. But I'm no expert.Actually, the reason it's spike only is because they are the most likely to die from causes other than hunting. So by killing them you are actually less likely to effect the herd since a lot of the spikes killed by hunters were going to die anyway.For me, I say leave it the way it is. Every elk I've killed in Washington was on a special permit. If the consensus is opportunity for all, tribal and rest, I say put it back to any bull. When I moved here and started elk hunting in the Naches drainage, I thought it was crazy busy elk season, people all over, but people were killing bulls. Granted, I would go to the feed lots in the winter and see only a couple of mature bulls and find maybe a couple sheds in the spring. Still, I think there were more people elk hunting in Washington then now. Having grown up in Montana and then moving to Washington in my late twenties, comparing the elk hunting in the two states, it is kind of similar hunting conditions. Montana has a longer season, but most elk are killed in the first days. Washington the same, except shorter season. Ask any Montana resident what their biggest concern is and they'll likely say private land. All the elk run to private holdings where hunting by the public is not allowed.
The reason they went to a spike only management is because their is biological studies that show that bull to cow ratios that low and diminished age class reduces breeding effectiveness which in the long run has diminishing returns on opportunity and sustainability. And the problem about you killing elk on special permits is that their availability will continue to decrease to where many people will support this management with tag and application sales but never get rewarded for those applications. People put in for special permits because it represents something special and exciting. Why not increase that special and exciting experience rather than offer up ideas like more crowded woods and less elk. Nevada and Arizona have some of the most envied elk hunting in the western states and not only for antler size but for success rates as well. They do this with smaller elk herds and draw only systems. We are lucky enough to have ~30-40,000 roosevelts to pull from let along a fairly strong rocky mountain herd but no one bats an eye at Washington. The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Where did you get this statement... If that was the case then all of the OTC units in Washington would have any bull to harvest from??? Yes 65% of them get killed a spike only general season and whats left behind escapes. But when they aren't targeted they don't randomly get killed. Most cougars would have a hell of a time taking down a spike and they spend most of the time with the herd anyway which does even more to protect them from predators. What else is left to kill them... Let me guess natives... They don't just keel over after there year of spikehood because they are dumb. Please provide the source of where this is being stated. I am very interested!
A biologist talked about it on a podcast. I don't think most of the deaths would be from predation. I think they are more susceptible to winter kill and other forms of attrition. The young of any species have a lower survival rate than mature adults.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
I would talk to the biologists in this state regarding winter kill susceptibility of spike bulls compared to older age class bulls. I would imagine they are slightly more susceptible in harder winters but I don’t think they are dying off in high enough numbers every year to support one harvest system over another. I could be wrong but I think after a year of escapement as calves they are very resilient to winter unless nutrition is subpar in the area.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Colville on June 05, 2020, 11:08:32 AM
We used to have 22k hunters in 2013. If we are going to posit that the "old" higher kill rates were typical, so were the hunters licensed. Still looking at 4 years to draw.
Not to mention the existing point system fiasco. People who have paid in forever, you are going to have to accommodate them with at least half of the tags at first so that they aren't being raped. That'll mean newer hunters will draw in a decade or longer.
There is NO way to take 1000 bulls and make them more huntable, EXCEPT ONE WAY.
Reduce hunters. That's it. Only a continued plummet of hunters will get the ratio down to a frequent hunt. A growing hunter pool is completely incompatible with improved frequency of hunting.
You can't' simply decide to push off youth recruitment by saying small game, bear and turkey will do. It won't. That's not what people hunt. The numbers of tag holders for those species are a tiny fraction of deer/elk and you won't triple the hunting of those species by taking away deer/elk opportunity. Like it or not, people want to hunt deer and elk. Without frequency in those hunts, you are going to lose recruitment. Traditional wall camp hunting with 10 of your family and friends isn't going to shift to fall turkey.
Just to be clear, I am not upset with people who are trying to figure out if there's a better way. But I insist on the numbers. The plan can't be, let's steal every year hunting on a basis of we'll see if it works. I simply can't see how the math supports it. Now if someone has a biologist that has a plan to get the harvestable herd doubled... I'm all ears. But show me the 2000 bulls FIRST.
I would support a bonus point system for any person who checks in a bear or cougar from the unit in question. Kind of hard to regulate because people can shoot a bear anywhere. But they could have a scheduled couple weekends and put check stations on the main routes in and out, have people check in and check out their dead predator. Of course, this will just lead to some BS decision by WDFW to reduce bear take in the region. As though that's not being back filled with wolves anyway. I digress. You can't defeat the WDFW, it's a political organization not a pure biological one. We don't elect the WDFW director. And of course, that wouldn't help in this state if we did.
Post by: buckfvr on June 05, 2020, 11:55:33 AM
If I was to start over with my grown sons as kids again, I would go with abundant targets and excitement and focus on yotes. Coyote are smart and hard to hunt but at the same time, success and opportunity is greater than hunting deer/elk.
Post by: villajac29 on June 05, 2020, 12:48:30 PM
No matter how you slice it. The herd can only give about 900 combined bulls, including spikes in a year. The habitat and predator situation isn't going to allow the herd to kick out 2000 a year. At 1000 a year in district 8 you just can't have more than 5000 hunters, probably 4000.
We used to have 22k hunters in 2013. If we are going to posit that the "old" higher kill rates were typical, so were the hunters licensed. Still looking at 4 years to draw.
Not to mention the existing point system fiasco. People who have paid in forever, you are going to have to accommodate them with at least half of the tags at first so that they aren't being raped. That'll mean newer hunters will draw in a decade or longer.
There is NO way to take 1000 bulls and make them more huntable, EXCEPT ONE WAY.
Reduce hunters. That's it. Only a continued plummet of hunters will get the ratio down to a frequent hunt. A growing hunter pool is completely incompatible with improved frequency of hunting.
You can't' simply decide to push off youth recruitment by saying small game, bear and turkey will do. It won't. That's not what people hunt. The numbers of tag holders for those species are a tiny fraction of deer/elk and you won't triple the hunting of those species by taking away deer/elk opportunity. Like it or not, people want to hunt deer and elk. Without frequency in those hunts, you are going to lose recruitment. Traditional wall camp hunting with 10 of your family and friends isn't going to shift to fall turkey.
Just to be clear, I am not upset with people who are trying to figure out if there's a better way. But I insist on the numbers. The plan can't be, let's steal every year hunting on a basis of we'll see if it works. I simply can't see how the math supports it. Now if someone has a biologist that has a plan to get the harvestable herd doubled... I'm all ears. But show me the 2000 bulls FIRST.
I would support a bonus point system for any person who checks in a bear or cougar from the unit in question. Kind of hard to regulate because people can shoot a bear anywhere. But they could have a scheduled couple weekends and put check stations on the main routes in and out, have people check in and check out their dead predator. Of course, this will just lead to some BS decision by WDFW to reduce bear take in the region. As though that's not being back filled with wolves anyway. I digress. You can't defeat the WDFW, it's a political organization not a pure biological one. We don't elect the WDFW director. And of course, that wouldn't help in this state if we did.
I don't if I ever said we could guarantee everyone to hunt every 3-4 years that is probably impossible when moving to an OTC hunt. You keep trying to figure out what the herd can support to maximum effect but what we need to focus on is how can we maximize opportunity and recover elk herds to get back to self sustaining numbers that result in high calf and fawn recruitment. Once we do that opportunity will increase and maybe its not every 4 years but you could have a good idea that you would draw a tag in 10 years rather than shooting one spike in 15 years and drawing a bull tag once every 50 years. Point is that our numbers when compared to other states and populations more align with a draw only system where probably only 1/6th to 1/8th of the hunting population has a bull tag every year. But that means that in 8-15 years (high end for early rifle tags) depending on what tag you really want we will cycle through our entire application pool. And that's not counting antlerless tags if we can get our herds back up to that 20,000+ number and increase calf recruitment to sustain the population.
Also when talking about recruitment deer isn't likely going draw only across the state any time soon so I'm not advocating taking away that option. Between DEER, BEAR, and small game youth will still have a chance to get out and if we work into the system better opportunity for youth to draw bull or cow tags then they will get a quality elk hunt on the regular as well. I'm not spelling the end of days of OTC elk opportunity just saying it might not be sustainable to be every year that is all.
In order to boost the herds, the best thing we can do as hunters is stop pushing for antlerless opportunity. I'm thankful they took away OTC archery antlerless this year but with that being said lets stop issuing so many antlerless draw tags as well. The biologists are telling the commission to but hunters push and push since they are to selfish to forgo a chance at an elk for a couple years the commission bends and doesn't listen to the bios. Patience is something we need to learn as Washington hunters.
Post by: Colville on June 05, 2020, 01:22:23 PM
It's been a while since I learned the #. But, I believe the WDFW thinks 10K Elk in the E-WA herd is the carrying capacity. That's part of the problem with the full analysis. The department has a top end # for the herd and when we approach it, they are going to add antlerless. Someplace just barely north of 1000 bulls a year based on the "determined" carrying capacity of this herd is what we might get on the good years without a bad winter.
The other problem is simply that you can't use the words "maximize opportunity" and have it mean anything. They've polled people tons on this. The vast majority of hunters prefer they have the opportunity to hunt, to the opportunity to hunt with better success and age class every 4 years. You are in the minority about what constitutes "opportunity". Don't take my word. Talk to WDFW about how their polling stands on hunt every year vs every several I think it's better than 75% prefer every year.
Some additional facts on the herd. The state doesn't want more in the Yakima herd:
Page 28 for the objective herd size (9500 elk):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju-8L0vOvpAhVCKH0KHSVzBLoQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2F00777%2Fwdfw00777.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2EJdubDzC1jbpIQUVWK0IJ
Read the depredation/agriculture issues before thinking well, just decide to carry more elk. Not happening.
Komo news on herd in 2017:
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=249904.90;last_msg=3374809
"In 2012, the Yakima elk herd, which occupies the portion of Kittitas County south of Interstate 90 and extends south into Yakima County, included an estimated 11,500 animals. It had an estimated 16 bulls for every 100 animals in the herd. WDFW aims to maintain 9,500 animals in that herd and 12 to 20 bulls for every 100 animals. Moore said WDFW will issue plenty of bull tags in the Yakima herd's range, as it has in the past, and probably more cow tags."
To summarize. We can't get more bulls because carrying capacity is 9500 Elk.
We can't therefore hunt them but every 4 to 5 years on draw only best case.
People don't think every 4 years constitutes opportunity.
No one believes they can get WDFW to move capacity to 20,000 elk.
Now what?
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2020, 01:29:19 PM
No matter how you slice it. The herd can only give about 900 combined bulls, including spikes in a year. The habitat and predator situation isn't going to allow the herd to kick out 2000 a year. At 1000 a year in district 8 you just can't have more than 5000 hunters, probably 4000.
We used to have 22k hunters in 2013. If we are going to posit that the "old" higher kill rates were typical, so were the hunters licensed. Still looking at 4 years to draw.
Not to mention the existing point system fiasco. People who have paid in forever, you are going to have to accommodate them with at least half of the tags at first so that they aren't being raped. That'll mean newer hunters will draw in a decade or longer.
There is NO way to take 1000 bulls and make them more huntable, EXCEPT ONE WAY.
Reduce hunters. That's it. Only a continued plummet of hunters will get the ratio down to a frequent hunt. A growing hunter pool is completely incompatible with improved frequency of hunting.
You can't' simply decide to push off youth recruitment by saying small game, bear and turkey will do. It won't. That's not what people hunt. The numbers of tag holders for those species are a tiny fraction of deer/elk and you won't triple the hunting of those species by taking away deer/elk opportunity. Like it or not, people want to hunt deer and elk. Without frequency in those hunts, you are going to lose recruitment. Traditional wall camp hunting with 10 of your family and friends isn't going to shift to fall turkey.
Just to be clear, I am not upset with people who are trying to figure out if there's a better way. But I insist on the numbers. The plan can't be, let's steal every year hunting on a basis of we'll see if it works. I simply can't see how the math supports it. Now if someone has a biologist that has a plan to get the harvestable herd doubled... I'm all ears. But show me the 2000 bulls FIRST.
I would support a bonus point system for any person who checks in a bear or cougar from the unit in question. Kind of hard to regulate because people can shoot a bear anywhere. But they could have a scheduled couple weekends and put check stations on the main routes in and out, have people check in and check out their dead predator. Of course, this will just lead to some BS decision by WDFW to reduce bear take in the region. As though that's not being back filled with wolves anyway. I digress. You can't defeat the WDFW, it's a political organization not a pure biological one. We don't elect the WDFW director. And of course, that wouldn't help in this state if we did.
We had almost 5K archery hunters last year.
Post by: Stein on June 05, 2020, 01:34:24 PM
Post by: Colville on June 05, 2020, 01:45:30 PM
Won't have that many this year with the reduction in cow opportunity. I think between the economy and reduction in general and special antlerless/bull opportunity and we'll seen sub 16k hunters. They'll bounce back some with increased permits in the future. I suspect last year you got some rifle hunters to fling sticks hoping for a shot at a cow, cow permits were zilch last year, and this.
At the long range rate of attrition, in 20 years people will get to hunt bulls every six or seven years. Hunters are dropping like flies. Deer and Elk hunters are down 20% since 2013.
Post by: Colville on June 05, 2020, 01:49:06 PM
The other phenomenon going on, rifle guys draw a permit for "Bull". They then do the math and figure out that you can draw your next "bull" permit on half the points, if you are an archer. There's more than a few that put in that way and bag hunting if they don't draw. I'm with you though, I have kid sports conflicts for the last decade. I'm a "hunter" but I never hunted elk, just bought points and put in for tags that I didn't draw. Never did pursue spikes, but I'm one of the "hunters" on paper.
Post by: High Climber on June 05, 2020, 01:50:19 PM
5k people that archery hunted or 5k people that bought tags? Up until last year, I would buy a tag to participate in the draw but had no intention of hunting the general season. I'm in the minority, but I would guess I'm not the only one.I buy a tag in WA for the draw opportunity as well, haven’t hunted elk in this state for a few years. I think there is a fair amount of people that do this
Post by: Special T on June 05, 2020, 01:53:29 PM
5k people that archery hunted or 5k people that bought tags? Up until last year, I would buy a tag to participate in the draw but had no intention of hunting the general season. I'm in the minority, but I would guess I'm not the only one.I'm just going by department numbers so time on the ground is up for debate, but that number is for both herds.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: villajac29 on June 06, 2020, 08:07:15 AM
villajac29,
It's been a while since I learned the #. But, I believe the WDFW thinks 10K Elk in the E-WA herd is the carrying capacity. That's part of the problem with the full analysis. The department has a top end # for the herd and when we approach it, they are going to add antlerless. Someplace just barely north of 1000 bulls a year based on the "determined" carrying capacity of this herd is what we might get on the good years without a bad winter.
The other problem is simply that you can't use the words "maximize opportunity" and have it mean anything. They've polled people tons on this. The vast majority of hunters prefer they have the opportunity to hunt, to the opportunity to hunt with better success and age class every 4 years. You are in the minority about what constitutes "opportunity". Don't take my word. Talk to WDFW about how their polling stands on hunt every year vs every several I think it's better than 75% prefer every year.
Some additional facts on the herd. The state doesn't want more in the Yakima herd:
Page 28 for the objective herd size (9500 elk):
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwju-8L0vOvpAhVCKH0KHSVzBLoQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwdfw.wa.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2F00777%2Fwdfw00777.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2EJdubDzC1jbpIQUVWK0IJ
Read the depredation/agriculture issues before thinking well, just decide to carry more elk. Not happening.
Komo news on herd in 2017:
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php?action=post;topic=249904.90;last_msg=3374809
"In 2012, the Yakima elk herd, which occupies the portion of Kittitas County south of Interstate 90 and extends south into Yakima County, included an estimated 11,500 animals. It had an estimated 16 bulls for every 100 animals in the herd. WDFW aims to maintain 9,500 animals in that herd and 12 to 20 bulls for every 100 animals. Moore said WDFW will issue plenty of bull tags in the Yakima herd's range, as it has in the past, and probably more cow tags."
To summarize. We can't get more bulls because carrying capacity is 9500 Elk.
We can't therefore hunt them but every 4 to 5 years on draw only best case.
People don't think every 4 years constitutes opportunity.
No one believes they can get WDFW to move capacity to 20,000 elk.
Now what?
I'm gonna have a zoom call with District 3 Biologist Scott McCorquodale on Tuesday and I will ask him that question. What I understand at this point is the 9500-10000 number is what biologist recognize is the number of elk needed to swamp predators during the calving season to retain calf recruitment numbers to sustain the elk herd. At its current point calf recruitment has been terrible to say the least the past few years. If it continues to stay low the herd will never grow to the point that cats will be overwhelmed by the calving season. I believe the carrying capacity is around that number due to the elk fence and limited wintering habitat, however I will ask that question on Tuesday. I also understand that District 3 Biologists are talking with the commission to work within the hound hunting ban law that says you can reinstate it in order to help at risk ungulate populations (this being the deer in the area since they are the primary target of cats). Biologists can only do so much however since the commission makes the final decision. Let's hope they allow it because it will hopefully relieve pressure on both the deer and elk in the are for a second at least.
I also don't know who supports what as I don't know what the most recent polls have shown. I would like to support what hunters want backed up by what biologists are saying. I offered the ideas because I ran them by those around me from all different age groups, demographics of hunter, weapon users and they all said something needs to change and thought it wasn't a bad idea. I understand you don't love it and there are people on here that are staunchly against it but the poll shows that most people who have voted in the chat have voted to remove that system. I'm not saying that is a representative sample and I understand data analytics enough to try and get that sample size to see correlative accuracy. Until I have the platform to find out we are only speculating as to what people want in the current conditions.
I have plan's to tackle this issue. Have I been arguing from the standpoint of my position on the issue, yes. However if I see a representative sample size of WA elk hunters saying they want to keep the system as is or have OTC opportunity every year I would say that's what the commission should do. The problem is then, that the commission doesn't always make decisions of of survey data or even what the biologists are recommending on the ground. But whatever the majority wants we should push the commission to implement.
Post by: villajac29 on June 06, 2020, 08:10:11 AM
Stein,
The other phenomenon going on, rifle guys draw a permit for "Bull". They then do the math and figure out that you can draw your next "bull" permit on half the points, if you are an archer. There's more than a few that put in that way and bag hunting if they don't draw. I'm with you though, I have kid sports conflicts for the last decade. I'm a "hunter" but I never hunted elk, just bought points and put in for tags that I didn't draw. Never did pursue spikes, but I'm one of the "hunters" on paper.
Have you just been playing devils advocate then the whole time, I'm not saying you don't believe what your saying but it seemed like you had skin in the game :chuckle:
Post by: Colville on June 06, 2020, 10:57:54 AM
Herds can be managed both ways. They can manage #'s of animals with varying methodologies. You can have a healthy herd and fewer hunters less frequently or more hunters all the time.
I get frustrated when the arguments rely on predictions you cant see in the math. The yak herd, see the links, is not desired to exceed 10k. They want to keep the herd near that # for hunting, but if it grows to 12k, they put the smack down on cow permits. You can't grow that herd under the accepted management #. If you can't, you have to advertise correctly that this plan means hunting every 5 years at best.
I just want the proposal to be honest without predicting a new supply of animals that arent there and without over promising hunting every 3 years.
Post by: villajac29 on June 06, 2020, 11:56:44 AM
Not devils advocate. I hunted before my kids made it a problem. I will again as they age out of my home. This isnt an elk specific argument. Its a frequency vs age class of animal argument. 3pt whitetail in 49 degrees north a couple years back was essentially the same debate. One that polled heavilly in favor of every year, rather than qdm.
Herds can be managed both ways. They can manage #'s of animals with varying methodologies. You can have a healthy herd and fewer hunters less frequently or more hunters all the time.
I get frustrated when the arguments rely on predictions you cant see in the math. The yak herd, see the links, is not desired to exceed 10k. They want to keep the herd near that # for hunting, but if it grows to 12k, they put the smack down on cow permits. You can't grow that herd under the accepted management #. If you can't, you have to advertise correctly that this plan means hunting every 5 years at best.
I just want the proposal to be honest without predicting a new supply of animals that arent there and without over promising hunting every 3 years.
I'm still confused where you got this 3 years number. The 3 year waiting period I suggested was the period of time it would be mandated for hunters to wait after drawing in order to start reapplying again... If everyone got to hunt every 5 years that would be incredible but that also isn't likely.
I think that's where our misunderstanding is stemming from. In our current system 5% success is high for spike hunts. At that rate hunters shoot 1 spike every 20 years. I understand that's not how success is distributed and some will shoot 5 in that period and some will shoot zero. I'm mainly asking the question would hunters rather have 1-4 bull tags in that period of time (dependent on quality of tag being applied for) with less competition in the woods, or would they continue to want to buy a tag every year and continue to have to compete with crowds and have low success rates. I understand you would rather have the every year opportunity but draw only wouldn't have to be managed for "quality" bulls. If allocation was liberal in comparison with bull calf recruitment numbers age class would likely decrease. The more conservative you get with allocation the less likely people are to draw tags but age class distribution increases. Either way it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be managed for "trophy potential".
The problem with 3 and 4 point minimums you see is in a system where deer only typically grow no more than 5 points on each side you are focusing hunter harvest on a narrower age class especially in a highly populated OTC system. This can also diminish older age class where yes bucks are escaping to 2.5 and 3.5 years old but few are making it past that age. That's a different discussion though.
Whatever hunters want can be achieved in a draw only system but how I understand it is - If you have 10000 elk in a herd and you are recruiting 3-4000 calves every year that will sustain the herd. Out of those 3000 calves close to 50% will be bulls. So if 1500 bulls are being deposited into the "bank of elk" then you can withdraw 1500 bulls and see no change to the bull population. If you desire increased bull population (bull to cow ratio) you harvest less than the recruited number adjusted for all other harvest including non-native and predators. The opposite is true, if the bull to cow ratios are higher than objective you withdraw more than the deposited number of calves into the population. This is dependent on what hunters want and can have depending on other factors. In the past we harvest 1234 bulls a year on average between all three major herds. I don't know what percentage this is of calf recruitment across the board but together along with native harvest and predatory impact that is likely around 100% of recruitment in normal years. The problem in the past few years has been that calf recruitment has been really low.
Again 30:100 is the benchmark for Calf:Cow ratios which will support stability above that you see herd growth. Here are the past 3 years numbers for each herd.
Blues Mountains: 2017 2018 2019
18 25 24
Colockum: 2017 2018 2019
19 30 25
Yakima: 2017 2018 2019 2020
22 30 26 19
*I was told the yakima number by the biologist for this year.
I would also like to say that calf ratios and spike recruitment are much easier to count since they distribute themselves more similarly with feed site elk than do bulls. So what I misunderstood when I recorded the podcast was that Bull to Cow ratios don't really mean much when it comes to allocating tags. Its mostly reliant on calf recruitment which is much easier number to study and accurately gather.
That's about as much as I can respond to this particular issue in text but I hope that answers some question. I got his info directly from Biologists in District 3 and it was the same management style of Biologists in Nevada and how they determine allocation (only difference is the percentage of 50"+ main beams is a stat they also look at to determine trophy potential as that is another part of their model).
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 07, 2020, 11:34:16 AM
Post by: ghosthunter on June 07, 2020, 12:31:50 PM
The public prospective will have to change, everyone is used to hunting being a right but if we were less competitive about our piece of the pie then we would likely have better experiences out in the woods.
Look, I appreciate your time and effort in this, but you keep making the same claim about better experiences in the woods. You are looking at it only through your perspective of fewer hunters+more branched bulls=quality experience, and assuming everybody else does too.
But they don't. What you're offering up is fewer hunters+more branched bulls=less hunting opportunity, to many folks.
I've come to believe the vast majority of Washington elk hunters just want to be in the woods every year with their friends and family, have a chance to hang a tag on an elk. Whatever that chance may be. Yes, they may frequently complain about the pumpkin patch, but they still go, year after year. It's not "quality" as you may see it, but it's still a hunt they can look forward to every year with friends and family. That's some of the highest quality time there is for a lot of folks. What you're offering in exchange for that doesn't level the scale.
:twocents:
Spot On
I have headed up a hunting camp of friends since the 80s. Some years we do well other nothing. We have not killed a muzzy elk in the last five. With no permits.
Every year I expect some not to want to go. But every year around permit time my phone starts ringing with my guys and gals wanting to firm up plans to hunt deer and elk. They look foreword to it every year.
Draw only will destroy the camps and reduce hunters. There was a poll many years ago that reflected hunters would rather have the group or camp hunting than limited access.
Many families have a limited time to hunt together. Five ,six years before the kids are off making there own lives and building careers. Draw only means you got what? One or no chance to hunt with your kid.
It was stated a lot of guys who draw do t harvest or only hunt a few days. Many of the guys have limited time away from work. Having permits with shorter duration might be better since a week off is about all the average guy can do if that.
My son when in high school went every year. Now managing a business , family of four ,seldom makes it to camp. Just to busy making a living and racing a family.
I would do away with multi season tags too.
Post by: buckfvr on June 07, 2020, 12:47:13 PM
Not devils advocate. I hunted before my kids made it a problem. I will again as they age out of my home (elk, i hunt deer every year) This isnt an elk specific argument. Its a frequency vs age class of animal argument. 3pt whitetail in 49 degrees north a couple years back was essentially the same debate. One that polled heavilly in favor of every year, rather than qdm.
It was a 4pt apr in both 117 and 121, not a 3pt in 49. It had nothing to do with any kind of "frequency vs. age class. I live here and never saw a poll that had anything to do with "every year, rather than qdm". It was a straight up 4pt apr with no change otherwise to the status quo hunt. What many of us who actually live here did see is a rapid improvement in harvest and hunting after the first year. What wdfw saw and felt was a loss of revenue from those who wont come over here unless they can kill anything with horns.
I know this post isn't about deer, so sorry for jacking, but I couldn't let misinformation flow about an on going fight with wdfw to restore the 4pt apr here, and if you say it doesn't work, then ask why there is a 3pt apr in place for years and years for south east whitetails.
Post by: stickslinger on June 08, 2020, 08:33:33 AM
Post by: Bango skank on June 08, 2020, 09:45:05 AM
Its a frequency vs age class of animal argument.3pt4pt whitetail in 49 degrees north and huckleberrya couplesix years back was essentially the same debate. One that polled heavilly in favor of every year, rather than qdm. it was every year, what are you saying?
Post by: Colville on June 08, 2020, 11:06:21 AM
The debate is over what constitutes opportunity, or quality opportunity. In the APR restriction, 500 to 700 fewer deer were available each year from the harvest durring the APR project. People who were content, even excited, to kill those deer did not think improving the number of 4 pts killed constituted an opportunity, they didn't feel quality was achieved with reduced success rates. Their opinion was no more valid than those that wanted more adult deer. They just happened to be in the vast majority of hunters. Don't have to believe me, ask the WDFW, they did polling on that APR project.
Same thing with Elk. The two sides do not agree on what constitutes opportunity or quality. The two views of opportunity are polar opposite.
Often, those for the draw only elk or those who were APR try to argue that if you give it a try, they'll grow the herds, change everything and their'll be more deer or elk and or short time lags between hunting. But they can't show it in the numbers.
We had a very long thread on APR back in the day. I tracked the before APR and after APR #'s. In the 8 years preceding the APR restriction, 117/121 were responsible for an average 56% of district 1's buck output. Durring APR: 2012 43%, 2013 45%, 2014 46%. The % of deer 121/117 provide from 2015 to 2019? 2015 57%. 2016 56%. 2017 56%. 2018 55%.
What's the point? between 500 and 700 fewer hunters took bucks per year during APR. Go back to the debate here in hutwa. As long as those preferring APR or Draw only elk make their argument saying, there will be vast years without hunting or there will be 700 fewer bucks available to hunt, I have no problem with their argument. I just disagree with it. In the APR days, they were saying, the herd "needs" it, and once you give it a go for a few years, the bucks taken will climb to comparable to before you went APR, they'll just be better bucks! It wasn't true, it isn't true. Draw only means no hunting for years. APR means far fewer bucks available to harvest. A reasonable position to hold as long as you embed the real consequences when one argues their point.
Post by: Bango skank on June 08, 2020, 12:26:48 PM
Bango and Buckfvr, I was too quick in my post. I appreciate that the 117/121 wasn't a draw only situation and mistated 3pt because that's what's a regular mule deer standard. My point was that the principle of the two debates is the same.
The debate is over what constitutes opportunity, or quality opportunity. In the APR restriction, 500 to 700 fewer deer were available each year from the harvest durring the APR project. People who were content, even excited, to kill those deer did not think improving the number of 4 pts killed constituted an opportunity, they didn't feel quality was achieved with reduced success rates. Their opinion was no more valid than those that wanted more adult deer. They just happened to be in the vast majority of hunters. Don't have to believe me, ask the WDFW, they did polling on that APR project.
Same thing with Elk. The two sides do not agree on what constitutes opportunity or quality. The two views of opportunity are polar opposite.
Often, those for the draw only elk or those who were APR try to argue that if you give it a try, they'll grow the herds, change everything and their'll be more deer or elk and or short time lags between hunting. But they can't show it in the numbers.
We had a very long thread on APR back in the day. I tracked the before APR and after APR #'s. In the 8 years preceding the APR restriction, 117/121 were responsible for an average 56% of district 1's buck output. Durring APR: 2012 43%, 2013 45%, 2014 46%. The % of deer 121/117 provide from 2015 to 2019? 2015 57%. 2016 56%. 2017 56%. 2018 55%.
What's the point? between 500 and 700 fewer hunters took bucks per year during APR. Go back to the debate here in hutwa. As long as those preferring APR or Draw only elk make their argument saying, there will be vast years without hunting or there will be 700 fewer bucks available to hunt, I have no problem with their argument. I just disagree with it. In the APR days, they were saying, the herd "needs" it, and once you give it a go for a few years, the bucks taken will climb to comparable to before you went APR, they'll just be better bucks! It wasn't true, it isn't true. Draw only means no hunting for years. APR means far fewer bucks available to harvest. A reasonable position to hold as long as you embed the real consequences when one argues their point.
Success rates did not go down, they went up, and after repealing the 4pt rule sucvess rates began a steady decline again. If less total deer were taken during the apr its not because success rstes went down, they didnt. Its because number of hunters went down.
Post by: Colville on June 08, 2020, 01:31:56 PM
Post by: Bango skank on June 08, 2020, 01:42:54 PM
Bango... Yes, success as a ratio of hunters in those units didn't slip, because so many hunters fled. Your point is true, but doesn't address the issue. There were a ton fewer kills than could have occurred. The argument many made that the units could be as productive under APR was not true. It's fine with me if people want Draw only Elk or APR. Just be straight up about the cost, it always gets fuzzy wait and see type sales jobs that aren't possible in the #'s.
Fewer bucks were killed than could have been, because a lot of people chose not to hunt there. That doesnt mean apr is bad, that means a lit of people want to kill spikes. And since the apr was lifted, harvest has gone steadily down. So far youve been wrong about how many pts the apr was, when it was, where it was, and how it affected success rates. You should probably just stop giving your opinion on it since you clearly know nothing about it.
Post by: buckfvr on June 08, 2020, 02:01:36 PM
Bango... Yes, success as a ratio of hunters in those units didn't slip, because so many hunters fled. Your point is true, but doesn't address the issue. There were a ton fewer kills than could have occurred. The argument many made that the units could be as productive under APR was not true. It's fine with me if people want Draw only Elk or APR. Just be straight up about the cost, it always gets fuzzy wait and see type sales jobs that aren't possible in the #'s.
True numbers/stats are available through northeast wa. wildlife group. Being familiar with their efforts will clearly show you the reality of the past apr we had so briefly. Instead of confusing yourself by trying to compare apples to oranges, get the data, accept it without twisting it, and then maybe you can talk sensibly about it. Youre sounding all smoke and mirrors...…. :dunno:
Post by: Colville on June 08, 2020, 02:20:28 PM
Post by: predatorpro on June 08, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 08, 2020, 03:28:09 PM
What units should all those thousands of hunters go to, to hunt bigger healthier herds?
Well at some point, unlimited elk hunting isn't sustainable. That's what every other state has decided. Just because we like hunting elk in our home state every year doesn't mean it's going to remain sustainable.
Post by: Miles on June 08, 2020, 03:48:44 PM
I’m betting they will fairly soon.
Post by: vandeman17 on June 08, 2020, 03:50:38 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 08, 2020, 04:03:43 PM
The entire state should go to draw only for elk and mule deer.no reason for us on the west side to suffer like east side, our herds are fine.
I’m betting they will fairly soon.
Post by: Colville on June 08, 2020, 04:26:41 PM
What units should all those thousands of hunters go to, to hunt bigger healthier herds?
Well at some point, unlimited elk hunting isn't sustainable. That's what every other state has decided. Just because we like hunting elk in our home state every year doesn't mean it's going to remain sustainable.
Why Jonathan? We have been some years below herd capacity, others over, but it's managed very close to the 10k number in Yakima. That said, elk hunters have dropped by 20% over the last 6+ years with no reason to believe that trend is going to stop. IF the herd size hasn't fallen off, under much higher hunter count, why all of a sudden will it become "unsustainable"?
Post by: KFhunter on June 08, 2020, 04:43:58 PM
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901019&slug=1099010
note the dates, note the numbers
Post by: Jimmy33 on June 08, 2020, 09:58:30 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: huntnnw on June 08, 2020, 10:14:03 PM
The entire state should go to draw only for elk and mule deer.
I’m betting they will fairly soon.
mule deer should of happened years ago
Post by: elkchaser54 on June 08, 2020, 10:23:02 PM
How about some numbers and some perspective
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19901019&slug=1099010
note the dates, note the numbers
Really cool to see the #s back in the 90s. The blue mountain herd is believed to be slightly above 4000 according to 2019 prospects pdf. In 1990 it was 7000, thats crazy to think they have managed this herd down to half of its levels in 20 years .
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:24:50 AM
What units should all those thousands of hunters go to, to hunt bigger healthier herds?
Well at some point, unlimited elk hunting isn't sustainable. That's what every other state has decided. Just because we like hunting elk in our home state every year doesn't mean it's going to remain sustainable.
My point exactly!
Post by: dilleytech on June 09, 2020, 08:41:38 AM
I never participated in a the rifle spike only hunts just archery and muzzy my whole life, but the people I know who actual hunt have a success rate closer to 50% so I don’t really buy the below 6% percent success rate argument. We all know most guys don’t get off their couch in hunting season and maybe a majority of guys don’t report their harvest. Draw only to hunt every 4-5 years probably sounds great to guys who all ready hunt out of state every year any way. But for those of us who like killing a elk most years in are back yards it’s pretty hard to support.
My backyard is now a west side unit though so I guess I’ll just stand by on the sidelines and see what happens. I know my Yakima friends are really frustrated loosing there late season cow hunts, specially when you see how the state is being mismanaged. But hey at least there’s bears everywhere to hunt I guess..
Post by: ridgefire on June 09, 2020, 08:51:33 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 08:53:25 AM
The spike only thing is dumb, but it gets people buying tags.
If it went draw only there'd be fewer elk tag sales and I think it would put additional pressure on OTC deer tags.
I think a small % of hunters get into the draw game, most go to walmart and just buy tags, and if they can't buy an OTC elk tag like they've done for 20+ years they'll say piss on it and get angry.
The spike bulls would be allowed to grow into more mature bulls, so the draw would get much better a few years down the road for those that participate.
but also there'd be more people applying for draws I believe too, especially when the number of nice bulls increases because they aren't getting slaughtered as spikes with OTC tags.
I think it would reduce revenue overall for WDFW, which in turn would reduce management of the elk herds.
I see a lot of loosing, and a small segment of hunters would gain and have a better hunt I have no doubt of that.
I'm still mixed, but leaning towards ending OTC spike hunts in favor of draw only branched bull.
Post by: Maverick on June 09, 2020, 09:00:25 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 09:05:02 AM
If the 100 series GMU's were properly managed for Elk and had predator reduction, I believe they could take up the slack. The habitat could hold a lot of Elk and they'd have great escapement, cover and winter habitat.
It could be an epic elk hunting mecca.
It pisses me off to think what it could be here.
Post by: dilleytech on June 09, 2020, 09:13:22 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 09:14:16 AM
If we cant get the tribes to help us properly manage the herds then there is no point sadly
I can only think of about 2 ways to get the tribes to come to the table and make a joint management plan...
1) scorched earth. Open up OTC any elk in all units that tribes are an issue, slaughter the elk until there's so few left no one is getting much elk. Keep it this way until the tribes are willing to work with the state and we can finally have a joint state/tribe management plan that is fair for all. Then rebuild the herds.
2) go roadless. destroy all access except foot only. This would harm all other recreation and the push back would be tremendous. We could compromise by gating roads from Oct thru May. The point is make it hard for the tribes to drive up to a herd and load in a truck.
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 09:16:37 AM
It seems true that most people who aren’t successful usually aren’t the guys putting in for tags anyway but if it went to draw only most of those guys would be in the draw so odds would get worse. At least short term.
Yes, there'd be some that got into the points game, but honestly I think most hunters just go to walmart and buy their tags on opening day or maybe a week prior. This would be a shock to them because they do not participate in the planning, they don't email WDFW. I think they'd get pissed and just buy a deer tag or not even buy a tag.
Some would jump into the points game, but meh most would just be disgruntled, curse WDFW and go home.
Post by: predatorpro on June 09, 2020, 09:16:46 AM
Post by: BoomWhop on June 09, 2020, 10:37:04 AM
Do both....with a couple of draw only wilderness units. I wish that was a choice on the polls.If we cant get the tribes to help us properly manage the herds then there is no point sadly
I can only think of about 2 ways to get the tribes to come to the table and make a joint management plan...
1) scorched earth. Open up OTC any elk in all units that tribes are an issue, slaughter the elk until there's so few left no one is getting much elk. Keep it this way until the tribes are willing to work with the state and we can finally have a joint state/tribe management plan that is fair for all. Then rebuild the herds.
2) go roadless. destroy all access except foot only. This would harm all other recreation and the push back would be tremendous. We could compromise by gating roads from Oct thru May. The point is make it hard for the tribes to drive up to a herd and load in a truck.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2020, 10:38:40 AM
The draw system is strictly to make money, it has no other purpose and in no way has anything to do with wildlife management.I agree it has a revenue focus in many ways - and that has influenced decisions by WDFW - but to say it has nothing to do with wildlife management is not accurate. If all tags were OTC the quality and quantity of game would be decimated from current levels.
Post by: Maverick on June 09, 2020, 10:43:24 AM
The draw system is strictly to make money, it has no other purpose and in no way has anything to do with wildlife management.I agree it has a revenue focus in many ways - and that has influenced decisions by WDFW - but to say it has nothing to do with wildlife management is not accurate. If all tags were OTC the quality and quantity of game would be decimated from current levels.
Basically our elk hunting would be like our deer hunting
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2020, 10:47:09 AM
minus all the permit late season hunts for deerThe draw system is strictly to make money, it has no other purpose and in no way has anything to do with wildlife management.I agree it has a revenue focus in many ways - and that has influenced decisions by WDFW - but to say it has nothing to do with wildlife management is not accurate. If all tags were OTC the quality and quantity of game would be decimated from current levels.
Basically our elk hunting would be like our deer hunting
Post by: B4noon on June 09, 2020, 11:18:11 AM
Post by: ridgefire on June 09, 2020, 11:30:21 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 11:37:52 AM
Post by: Onewhohikes on June 09, 2020, 11:54:30 AM
Post by: dvolmer on June 09, 2020, 06:41:25 PM
Because if the elk numbers drop so low that there are no tags to be given out due to poor game management, abundant tribal abuse, massive predators, and so forth, then the revenue from the sportsmen and women will dry up because no matter how many points you have, you cant draw a tag if there isn't one to be had!
Sounds pretty dreary, but you just wait 20-30 years and see! Plucking the golden goose will take time. As she is slowly plucked, the stress will slow down her egg production until it is all over on the day she is cooked!!!
Post by: Miles on June 09, 2020, 06:57:15 PM
Perhaps they could start with regions or units?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 07:10:18 PM
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
Post by: rtspring on June 09, 2020, 07:23:30 PM
Post by: Miles on June 09, 2020, 07:31:34 PM
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 07:53:10 PM
I too have heard biologists in podscasts say the reason for spike only hunts is to increase the total number of bulls available to be taken without affecting the over all population as much as bull only hunts due to spikes being Less likely to survive then a mature animal.
I never participated in a the rifle spike only hunts just archery and muzzy my whole life, but the people I know who actual hunt have a success rate closer to 50% so I don’t really buy the below 6% percent success rate argument. We all know most guys don’t get off their couch in hunting season and maybe a majority of guys don’t report their harvest. Draw only to hunt every 4-5 years probably sounds great to guys who all ready hunt out of state every year any way. But for those of us who like killing a elk most years in are back yards it’s pretty hard to support.
My backyard is now a west side unit though so I guess I’ll just stand by on the sidelines and see what happens. I know my Yakima friends are really frustrated loosing there late season cow hunts, specially when you see how the state is being mismanaged. But hey at least there’s bears everywhere to hunt I guess..
You really should understand math before you start spreading misinformation to other people within your community. Just because you know people who are more successful year to year doesn't mean the stats aren't off, for example...
Last year in the Little Naches Unit 1288 hunters reported hunting modern general season and killed 45 bulls. That equals 3% success rate. If you increase the success rate to 6% due to non-reporting (which was your starting point of which you said it was higher than) then that means 77 bulls were actually harvested. If this were true, harvest data and end of year metrics would be wildly off and the elk would be in much worse shape. The number of calf recruitment doesn't support that number of spikes being on the landscape. We already harvest 65% of spikes in any given year so if you doubled harvest due to non-reporting that would mean there would be no more mature bulls escaping. It's not likely success rates are off by even a whole percent let alone .2 percent with the number of hunters you are dealing with. Just not the way statistics work man, sorry to tell ya.
Also if you are out there not reporting your harvest you are just making it harder for the biologists to do there job. The more accurate data they can get the better decision making can happen and be supported down the road. Be responsible and do your part as a hunter
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:03:35 PM
I want to increase herd size rather than squabble over the remains, growing the herd/s should be first and foremost on everyone's thoughts.
The spike only thing is dumb, but it gets people buying tags.
If it went draw only there'd be fewer elk tag sales and I think it would put additional pressure on OTC deer tags.
I think a small % of hunters get into the draw game, most go to walmart and just buy tags, and if they can't buy an OTC elk tag like they've done for 20+ years they'll say piss on it and get angry.
The spike bulls would be allowed to grow into more mature bulls, so the draw would get much better a few years down the road for those that participate.
but also there'd be more people applying for draws I believe too, especially when the number of nice bulls increases because they aren't getting slaughtered as spikes with OTC tags.
I think it would reduce revenue overall for WDFW, which in turn would reduce management of the elk herds.
I see a lot of loosing, and a small segment of hunters would gain and have a better hunt I have no doubt of that.
I'm still mixed, but leaning towards ending OTC spike hunts in favor of draw only branched bull.
I believe I've said this before but if Washington made hunters purchase a license before tags and not lump them all together then it would solve a lot of the "revenue" loss from people not applying. It's a pretty strange system for WA to force hunters to buy a tag before an application. Doesn't make any sense, and kind of reinforces that OTC opportunities are actually good here, which in most cases they aren't. There are ways to fix the minor issues with our systems we just have to be creative. Also focusing applicants with zone elk management, waiting periods after drawing, and picking a once in a lifetime species or deer/elk would fix a lot of the issues of even more applicants which if you weren't aware was already happening. Check out the attached image. Even though this is the turnbull hunt I chose it because it has the column titles so people understand the numbers. If you go find this under "Special Hunt Permits and Raffles" page of the WDFW website you'll see that every year in most of the hunts the number of applicants with 1 point is increasing. This will only get worse as tag allocations are down and people aren't getting removed from the pools by drawing tags. Also since there is no waiting period then hunters will be right back in the system the next year after they draw. It's clearly inefficient as draw odds are terrible and the pools keep filling up.
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 09, 2020, 08:07:22 PM
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:08:05 PM
It seems true that most people who aren’t successful usually aren’t the guys putting in for tags anyway but if it went to draw only most of those guys would be in the draw so odds would get worse. At least short term.
Yes, there'd be some that got into the points game, but honestly I think most hunters just go to walmart and buy their tags on opening day or maybe a week prior. This would be a shock to them because they do not participate in the planning, they don't email WDFW. I think they'd get pissed and just buy a deer tag or not even buy a tag.
Some would jump into the points game, but meh most would just be disgruntled, curse WDFW and go home.
You really should try to speak from a position that is supported by data and not hear say. You seem disgruntled by everything but offer up few ideas that could realistically be implemented. I'm not saying your opinions don't matter but there seems to be little substance besides "this is what I think". Try to make things more constructive rather than inflammatory.
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:18:17 PM
I would also be all for opening up the units the Indians hunt for any elk in all seasons until they are gone. Hopefully it would open their eyes and get the Indians on board with some sort of a management plan and them rebuild the herds back up. It would suck short term but would be worth it long term.
It saddens me how many hunters are saying this... this is not management and conservation, it is throwing a temper tantrum. I spoke with a biologist today who has worked for the Yakamas and understands their harvest and the data surrounding it. According to him it is unlikely that out of 10,000 registered Yakamas (including babies, children and the elderly) that the hunting population which is even smaller harvests enough elk for it to become problematic.
We have to start looking big picture. If tribal members were over-harvesting to the point many of you saying they are the numbers wouldn't be stagnant they would be decreasing significantly each year. It just doesn't add up. Maybe just maybe if non-tribal hunters were less antagonistic towards something we can't change and started a conversation with tribal members and tried to connect with them to start to build a relationship maybe they would see the importance of reporting their harvest. It will be impossible to change anything if you are always so fervently opposed to tribes harvesting elk. It happened before the decline whether you were seeing it or not... it is sustainable. I just hope some people on here stop acting like children and being mindful enough to be patient and think through what really can be done to help things. And if its us that's sacrificing something that goes to show we really care about the wildlife not just "what I want".
Sorry for the soapbox but its hard listening to another person say we should just kill all the elk and start back where we were 100 years ago, makes me sick...
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:26:01 PM
So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 08:33:29 PM
As for the quality experience, you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer. I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year. Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 08:35:40 PM
counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:37:50 PM
I initially said go to draw only if it’s about the herd health. After reading through and doing some more in depth thinking about this, I think keeping business as usual is the smart move. I’m not going to advocate taking someone’s opportunity away so someone else can have, what they consider a quality experience, not gonna happen. I don’t chase elk here unless I draw a permit. Too busy elsewhere during that timeframe, but when we did chase elk, we would see no one until we got back to our trucks. I think the bigger issue people have is they want to hunt elk where they think elk should be instead of hunting elk where the elk want to be. All kinda of factors go into elk moving around. People are just lazy and unwilling to change areas due to comfort and familiarity. Game patterns change, people need to learn to adapt as well. Most of my experience has been in the archery seasons here, but we always found elk and had a great time. We had a ‘quality’ experience regardless of tag outcome. We more often than not found legal animals, just didn’t work out. That’s hunting. To try and push away opportunity, I can never get behind that. If it was about herd health, I’ll listen and probably support. The idea that ones ‘quality’ experience getting to trump everyone’s opportunity is selfish and really it’s kind of disgusting.
The actual herd health will likely not change much from the current system to a draw only system. What it would do would give managers the ability to more effectively effect antlerless and antlered harvest to where they can change outcomes to benefit both opportunity and a stratified age class. I understand your point as when I have hunted this area I had no trouble finding elk during archery season. Go out during a rifle season and see if that is the same. We have to look at this and how it effects everyone. It could actually provide more opportunity because as it sits right now at a 2-3% success rate average that means if everyone got to kill a spike(which isn't how hunting works so actually some people are harvest a bunch and some are harvesting none). But lets just imagine everyone got to kill a spike and the success rate was spread evenly. That means everyone gets one spike every 20 years... sounds pretty great right! But what if we changed over the system where as a rifle hunters(the hardest weapon to draw a tag for) could draw 1 quality early rifle tag in that period, potentially 2 late rifle tags and multiple cow tags(if elk were above objective like before 2015). That seems a lot better than objectively no chance to draw and getting 1 spike every 20 years. Yes that mean's you don't get a tag every year but you actually are getting better opportunity. It's my opinion and I understand that just trying to get people to think alternatively rather than at face value.
Truthfully if the majority want to support the system as is or a general OTC 3 point minimum or something like that I have nothing to say. I would support it if the majority did. Until I can see a well done inclusive survey to say that I'm gonna keep offering alternatives, because I believe there are better ways to do things.
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:43:15 PM
Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.
As for the quality experience, you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer. I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year. Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.
They aren't dying off they just are suppressed. The truth is you can't just count your way back to 2014 numbers. It's not the same as it was and changing the number for the sake of it isn't gonna fix bad recruitment. They aren't that bad at counting I promise you...
I promise you I'm not pushing my idea of quality on others, read my post before this. If most hunters want the system as is I will support that, but I need to see accurate data to see what the majority really want. I don't think this poll does that but I think it is attainable. You could cap non-resident hunters like every other state does and benefits from. I think most people would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point that is why I think it is ridiculous that bulls are escaping to 10,11, and 12 years old under the current system. We don't need every bull to be 330"+. It would be nice to manage for a couple here and there for people who like that stuff but there is a middle ground. There's still strong hunting heritage in draw only state. That doesn't go away unless we let it...
Post by: predatorpro on June 09, 2020, 08:45:50 PM
That would be amazing! Deer hunting is great in this state.The draw system is strictly to make money, it has no other purpose and in no way has anything to do with wildlife management.I agree it has a revenue focus in many ways - and that has influenced decisions by WDFW - but to say it has nothing to do with wildlife management is not accurate. If all tags were OTC the quality and quantity of game would be decimated from current levels.
Basically our elk hunting would be like our deer hunting
Post by: villajac29 on June 09, 2020, 08:47:06 PM
counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 08:56:02 PM
Furthermore, try not to think that you are the only one who has talked to the region 3 boys. Some of us have been having these conversations LOOOONG before you even started hunting. Plenty of folks are very aware of how they conduct their counts. I'll say it for the 100th time, counting the feed lot on a dry winter is not accurate science and the tag allocations are garbage.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 08:59:47 PM
Post by: carlyoungs on June 09, 2020, 09:00:01 PM
counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
I would normally agree with you on the last statement. Talk to the biologist in the methow area about how the deer populations is. He will tell you they are thriving and doing great. I use to hunt the methow 20 years ago up till a couple years ago. I can tell you for a fact the deer numbers are terrible. Anyone who has any history in the methow will tell you the biologist for the area are dead wrong in their "expert opinions "
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 09, 2020, 09:01:09 PM
Please don't put words in my mouth. I never once said herds are over objective. In fact I said several times that we are in a slight dip. A slight dip from an unsustainable number of animals doesn't justify the knee jerk tag cuts.
Furthermore, try not to think that you are the only one who has talked to the region 3 boys. Some of us have been having these conversations LOOOONG before you even started hunting. Plenty of folks are very aware of how they conduct their counts. I'll say it for the 100th time, counting the feed lot on a dry winter is not accurate science and the tag allocations are garbage.
:yeah:
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 09:06:11 PM
Shoet term :o you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.
It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.
That and going roadless
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: predatorpro on June 09, 2020, 09:07:57 PM
Post by: B4noon on June 09, 2020, 09:12:04 PM
[/quote]
Spot on 30 plus years doesn’t make you good at your job being vested in it does and when they spend more time counting eagles and marking bumblebees in the colockum because it comes with outside funding sources elk managment takes a back seat and basing permit numbers on feed lot counts makes no sense especially the way the last few winters have gone not to mention way to much shoot from the hip and crazy adjustment in permit levels every year managment should be done looking at the long game not extreme swings wdfw needs a bio who solely manages ungulates in the Yakima valley and can spend the time to do so rather then continuing to spread themselves to thin chasing federal contracts on endangered species we will continue to see a downturn in all recreational opportunities as wdfw makes a shift in priorities from the hook and bullet club and they focus on the desire of the rest of the population
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2020, 09:15:37 PM
You are not going to get the tribe to the negotiating table with such an ill informed idea...what you'll get is a trip to the court room where the United States steps in on behalf of Tribes and their treaty rights and next thing you know...we'll have a Boldt like decision for wildlife and the non tribal harvest of elk will be a fraction of what it is today.Shoet term :o you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.
It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.
That and going roadless
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 09, 2020, 09:19:27 PM
:yeah: the tribes would still be elk hunting and we would have no seasons at all. Jerky sales would still be on :bash:You are not going to get the tribe to the negotiating table with such an ill informed idea...what you'll get is a trip to the court room where the United States steps in on behalf of Tribes and their treaty rights and next thing you know...we'll have a Boldt like decision for wildlife and the non tribal harvest of elk will be a fraction of what it is today.Shoet term :o you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.
It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.
That and going roadless
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Post by: KFhunter on June 09, 2020, 09:23:55 PM
roadless it is
or status quo, but most likely OTC hunts will end for elk..
IDH knows what I think about roadless areas, so I don't say that on a whim. It might not be a perminant roadless area, could just be gates oct - april
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 09, 2020, 09:39:07 PM
all your talk about how the Bio Is Doing Such A great job figuring everything out on the count and your avatar is three big mature "Rocky Mountain bull elk" sheds in deep snow. LMAO! They aren't spending the money or time doing sound research. If you can't see that, you might want to clean your glasses. I listened to the podcast you were on. You admitted the elk were doing great prior to 2016. Then they were hit with the perfect storm of problems that did knock the herd down, but not to what the game department is claiming.counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
Post by: idahohuntr on June 09, 2020, 09:41:49 PM
You enthusiastically support them and you've picked up a lifetime membership for BHA? :dunno: I jest :chuckle:
IDH knows what I think about roadless areas, so I don't say that on a whim.
I was talking to a bio from Colorado today regarding a deer tag I drew...just some prelim chit chat to help with scouting...guy says to me, "and you don't need to be one of those head to toe new gear guys that thinks deer are only found 10 miles from a combustion engine" :chuckle: :chuckle: I thought maybe you'd moved to CO :yike:
Post by: Colville on June 09, 2020, 10:08:16 PM
If you cant grow the herd to 15k, you cant really change much about harvest. There's ZERO evidence that they will move the needle. Go back and read the report i posted. The AG interests are heavy opposed to a higher herd count. They eat the groceries all winter. Anyone who is in the "lets reduce hunting and grow the herd for a few years" camp doesnt understand that you can't.
Where will,the new huntable bulls come from if the max herd is the same its been for 30 years??????
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2020, 11:35:59 PM
The Tribe has a long history of not trusting the department and non Tribal members. If the tribal Bio has good data that could be shared it would help a lot. I also wouldn't be surprised that old grudges die hard.I would also be all for opening up the units the Indians hunt for any elk in all seasons until they are gone. Hopefully it would open their eyes and get the Indians on board with some sort of a management plan and them rebuild the herds back up. It would suck short term but would be worth it long term.
It saddens me how many hunters are saying this... this is not management and conservation, it is throwing a temper tantrum. I spoke with a biologist today who has worked for the Yakamas and understands their harvest and the data surrounding it. According to him it is unlikely that out of 10,000 registered Yakamas (including babies, children and the elderly) that the hunting population which is even smaller harvests enough elk for it to become problematic.
We have to start looking big picture. If tribal members were over-harvesting to the point many of you saying they are the numbers wouldn't be stagnant they would be decreasing significantly each year. It just doesn't add up. Maybe just maybe if non-tribal hunters were less antagonistic towards something we can't change and started a conversation with tribal members and tried to connect with them to start to build a relationship maybe they would see the importance of reporting their harvest. It will be impossible to change anything if you are always so fervently opposed to tribes harvesting elk. It happened before the decline whether you were seeing it or not... it is sustainable. I just hope some people on here stop acting like children and being mindful enough to be patient and think through what really can be done to help things. And if its us that's sacrificing something that goes to show we really care about the wildlife not just "what I want".
Sorry for the soapbox but its hard listening to another person say we should just kill all the elk and start back where we were 100 years ago, makes me sick...
More communication is necessary to overcome this issue and neither side seems overly interested.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2020, 11:48:36 PM
When you talked to the 2 bios did you ask about the survey work? Which of the bios did the count, and what areas did they fly and why?counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
I listened to the podcast. It was interesting, but regardless of what my thoughts are on your proposals the $ impacts Trump everything. If you are going to dive deeper into this subject, you will need access to the bean counters. I will bet that interview/ conversation will be much harder to come by.
I Admire your passion and wish is was involved with one of the many great sportsmens groups in the state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: Special T on June 09, 2020, 11:50:39 PM
I think going roadless would be the best way, but if you remeber correctly the last public lands director was handing out keys to tribal memebers, so I'm not sure if that would provide any leverage.Shoet term :o you guys are talking the end of elk hunting. Itll take 20 years to get sustainable herds back. By then a large portion of WA elk hunters will be dead or too old to hunt. There will be almost no new recruitment in that time period. I'm all for shaking the tree but it has to make sense.I wasn't advocating schorched earth otc any elk, that would be terrible.
It was just the only way I could think to get the tribe to thr negotiations table.
That and going roadless
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on June 10, 2020, 05:49:10 AM
So we have to agree with you or we don't know what we are talking about? You are grudgingly willing to side with us if we all want something else. But only if we provide empirical evidence (even though you don't) I think you may have a bit of tunnel vision. You know what you want and are twisting everything to fit that outcome.Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.
As for the quality experience, you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer. I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year. Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.
They aren't dying off they just are suppressed. The truth is you can't just count your way back to 2014 numbers. It's not the same as it was and changing the number for the sake of it isn't gonna fix bad recruitment. They aren't that bad at counting I promise you...
I promise you I'm not pushing my idea of quality on others, read my post before this. If most hunters want the system as is I will support that, but I need to see accurate data to see what the majority really want. I don't think this poll does that but I think it is attainable. You could cap non-resident hunters like every other state does and benefits from. I think most people would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point that is why I think it is ridiculous that bulls are escaping to 10,11, and 12 years old under the current system. We don't need every bull to be 330"+. It would be nice to manage for a couple here and there for people who like that stuff but there is a middle ground. There's still strong hunting heritage in draw only state. That doesn't go away unless we let it...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 10, 2020, 06:32:36 AM
So we have to agree with you or we don't know what we are talking about? You are grudgingly willing to side with us if we all want something else. But only if we provide empirical evidence (even though you don't) I think you may have a bit of tunnel vision. You know what you want and are twisting everything to fit that outcome.Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.
As for the quality experience, you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer. I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year. Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.
They aren't dying off they just are suppressed. The truth is you can't just count your way back to 2014 numbers. It's not the same as it was and changing the number for the sake of it isn't gonna fix bad recruitment. They aren't that bad at counting I promise you...
I promise you I'm not pushing my idea of quality on others, read my post before this. If most hunters want the system as is I will support that, but I need to see accurate data to see what the majority really want. I don't think this poll does that but I think it is attainable. You could cap non-resident hunters like every other state does and benefits from. I think most people would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point that is why I think it is ridiculous that bulls are escaping to 10,11, and 12 years old under the current system. We don't need every bull to be 330"+. It would be nice to manage for a couple here and there for people who like that stuff but there is a middle ground. There's still strong hunting heritage in draw only state. That doesn't go away unless we let it...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
BAM :yeah:
Post by: dilleytech on June 10, 2020, 06:47:23 AM
I too have heard biologists in podscasts say the reason for spike only hunts is to increase the total number of bulls available to be taken without affecting the over all population as much as bull only hunts due to spikes being Less likely to survive then a mature animal.
I never participated in a the rifle spike only hunts just archery and muzzy my whole life, but the people I know who actual hunt have a success rate closer to 50% so I don’t really buy the below 6% percent success rate argument. We all know most guys don’t get off their couch in hunting season and maybe a majority of guys don’t report their harvest. Draw only to hunt every 4-5 years probably sounds great to guys who all ready hunt out of state every year any way. But for those of us who like killing a elk most years in are back yards it’s pretty hard to support.
My backyard is now a west side unit though so I guess I’ll just stand by on the sidelines and see what happens. I know my Yakima friends are really frustrated loosing there late season cow hunts, specially when you see how the state is being mismanaged. But hey at least there’s bears everywhere to hunt I guess..
You really should understand math before you start spreading misinformation to other people within your community. Just because you know people who are more successful year to year doesn't mean the stats aren't off, for example...
Last year in the Little Naches Unit 1288 hunters reported hunting modern general season and killed 45 bulls. That equals 3% success rate. If you increase the success rate to 6% due to non-reporting (which was your starting point of which you said it was higher than) then that means 77 bulls were actually harvested. If this were true, harvest data and end of year metrics would be wildly off and the elk would be in much worse shape. The number of calf recruitment doesn't support that number of spikes being on the landscape. We already harvest 65% of spikes in any given year so if you doubled harvest due to non-reporting that would mean there would be no more mature bulls escaping. It's not likely success rates are off by even a whole percent let alone .2 percent with the number of hunters you are dealing with. Just not the way statistics work man, sorry to tell ya.
Also if you are out there not reporting your harvest you are just making it harder for the biologists to do there job. The more accurate data they can get the better decision making can happen and be supported down the road. Be responsible and do your part as a hunter
My point was real hunters have fairly good success. It’s not until you factor in the bubba hunters who haven’t killed something in 20 years that you start to see these very low percentages. The elk hunting around Yakima is decent despite your attempt to say that a person should expect to kill a elk every 20 years based on the states percentages.
Post by: ridgefire on June 10, 2020, 07:38:08 AM
Post by: Pinetar on June 10, 2020, 08:30:39 AM
I keep hearing by most on here that the Blues are in trouble and will believe that since I know nothing of the Blues. Also hear the Yakima herds are having issues by some on here and will not comment on those as I do not hunt them either but sounds like Karl thinks they are doing fine and that is a good enough opinion for me. I will go with someone spending tons of times in the hills before I will go with the biologists that sit at their desks and push numbers around, especially since I have never seen one of our local biologist in the field.
But as far as Manastash (Observatory), Taneum (Peaches Ridge), Teanaway and Colockum units, they are just fine. Cutting the permits in the Manastash and Taneum is a joke. The herds in these four units are doing fine, cows, calves and all age class of bulls.
I spend a ton of time in the hills nine months out of the year as my job affords it as I just work in the summer months. From January through April for the last 30 years I have been in these units almost every single day watching Elk and their movements and I have not once seen a biologist on the ground and I know who they are. I have seen them flying around in helos occasionally and they are never out there until noonish or later when the bulls are already bedded down in the timber for the day. Sure they can fly around down low in the winter and count their herds of cows, calves and younger bulls but if they want to count their mature bulls (even on big winter years) they need to get up a hell of a lot earlier and strap on some snowshoes, they would be quite surprised how many mature bulls there are and what never comes down to the winter welfare elk in feed lots. We also do not see them flying in the higher elevations where all these big lonely bulls are wintering and that may be due to the weather or danger of up drafts? One year they showed up at 1PM landed in the snow and talked to me. They asked me what I was doing and if I had seen any bulls? I asked them what they were doing? They said "counting mature bulls so they could figure out their branch bull numbers for the upcoming season" This happened on April 1st LOL
Lots of complaining about hunting sucks for spike bulls but why are there always a bunch of spikes running around after hunting season and in our feedlots and around the outskirts all winter.
Hunting elk every year is a tradition in our huge family and we always fill most of our kids spike tags and when we do get lucky and draw a special branched antlered tag we have a great hunt and always fill the tag with a smoker bull. If we do not draw a special branched tag we can always go hunt branched bulls in the any elk units. We live on a ranch and have cattle but we would rather eat elk and fill our freezers with cow tags, OTC spikes and the occasional mature bull. Getting out hunting elk every year with family and friends is what I live for.
Leave it alone and go back to more bull tags in the Manastash (Observatory) and Taneum (Peaches Ridge) cause the four units mentioned above have plenty of mature bulls and cutting the tags is ridiculous.
Maybe there are issues in some units but certainly not in all of them, managing them all the same by taking OTC hunting away from everyone and only being able to hunt elk every three to five years is BS. I like hunting elk and eating spikes with the slim chance of hunting mature bulls.
WDFW and their biologist do not and can not manage themselves let alone our elk herds. For years they weren't giving out enough permits for mature bulls in the Colockum and they were dying of old age, they didn't believe any of us locals on what they had up there. They finally started giving out more tags then started cutting them in the other units.
We have some great elk hunting in this state and IMO when you draw a tag you have a better chance of killing a smoker bull then any other state and I have killed and hunted in a lot of the other Western states for elk.
You can't and shouldn't manage all the Eastside elk units the same with drawing every 3 to 5 years to hunt elk. I'm all for figuring out a system that will give us all a better chance to draw more often but shutting down OTC hunting of elk is not the answer.
Start killing more predators is a great start for all of our ungulates. And more scouting then hunting will notch your tags.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 10, 2020, 08:43:45 AM
Post by: KFhunter on June 10, 2020, 08:56:24 AM
Convenced me!
(but I'm still hunting Idaho any bull otc)
Post by: fishngamereaper on June 10, 2020, 09:47:55 AM
Post by: predatorpro on June 10, 2020, 09:54:33 AM
Post by: GASoline71 on June 10, 2020, 11:00:51 AM
I have been hunting elk in 346 (modern firearm) and 342 (Muzzleloader) since 1991. Have seen the effects of when we went to spike only around 1994ish (memory is dang near shot, forgive me if im off). Prior to spike only and shortly there after, we had the "penalty box" when you applied for a cow tag or bull special draw. There was no points system as I recall and you had to buy an "early" tag that started 4 or 5 days ahead of general season. If drawn, you hunted a week prior to general season on your special permit tag, and then if you weren't successful, you had to wait 2 or 3 days before hunting in the general season. If you were unfortunate to not be drawn, you had to wait 2 or 3 days after the general season started before you could hunt. It was a weird setup and we all hated it. We also had to choose out of 6 different elk areas to hunt from, and only hunt the herd in that area. You had Western, Northern, Northeast, Colockum, Yakima, Southeast and the Blue Mountains. Really made it a pain in the butt.
The seasons were also a little later in the year for modern firearm. I don't remember being over there prior to Halloween except for a few years. Now we're over there the 3rd week of October in T-shirt weather half the time. I might as well be bowhunting! (Not that bowhunting is a bad thing. Lol) We had 6 to 8 people in our camp, and some years only 4 or 5. We averaged about 2 elk a year. Usually a spike or a raghorn 4 or 5 point, and/or maybe a cow. After spikes only we saw lots of elk, but none we could shoot. Mostly branched antlered bulls. Which was a real shock as only a year or 2 prior we could have attempted a harvest on the animal. Then the cow tags given out exploded with 200 to 300 tags being given out. One year around 1996 you were stepping around gut piles from dead cow elk all over the place. Some slob hunters even shot cows and left gut piles in the middle of roads. Then the steady decline of "seen" elk happened and it was frustrating as hell.
Our beloved area was now turning into a zone of no elk and too many hunters. So we bebopped around into different areas of the unit for a few years. Our success rate diminished significantly. Then in 2012 we saw our first wolf tracks. Opening morning in 346 with 2" of fresh snow on the ground, and not even a half mile from camp. 4 sets of wolf tracks. We never saw an elk track all day. :( I'm not saying the wolves have decimated the herds, but they had to contribute some.
I love hunting elk in the 300 series GMU's. I'm happy to read above that Manashtash and Taneum are doing well. We've been thinking about kmoving our operation to 340 for quite some time. It'll be hard to move from any area I've hunted for so long and lots of find memories of with family and friends. But we're going to make new adventures and memories in a new area. We hunt hard, and our family loves the thrill of the chase. We will be absent from the elk woods this year as there are some family commitments and things outside of our control that are going to make us skip this season. I bought my tag and put in for my point for the special draw.
I do hope that there will always be an OTC season for elk in this state. There are a lot of opportunities out there to harvest animals. Just gotta do your homework and be willing to do the scouting. Which we will be doing this year and through to next fall when we will be up in 340.
Great debate on this topic so far. I love to read this stuff from the "deck plate" as it were. (sorry, old Navy term.) ;)
Gary
Post by: villajac29 on June 10, 2020, 11:58:29 AM
all your talk about how the Bio Is Doing Such A great job figuring everything out on the count and your avatar is three big mature "Rocky Mountain bull elk" sheds in deep snow. LMAO! They aren't spending the money or time doing sound research. If you can't see that, you might want to clean your glasses. I listened to the podcast you were on. You admitted the elk were doing great prior to 2016. Then they were hit with the perfect storm of problems that did knock the herd down, but not to what the game department is claiming.counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
Listen to my most recent podcast with P N W I L D. I came to understand how tag allocation actually happens and kind of made my understanding of the importance of bull to cow ratios mean much less than I thought. The thing is the important metrics like calf to cow ratios are much easier to get than bull to cow ratios.
I’m gonna allow my position to change as I become more educated on the situation. I was as skeptical of this situation when I started researching it but as I have spoken to biologists it seems like they know what they are doing and have answers for armchair quarterbacks like us. I recorded a 1 hour 45 minute discussion with Scott McCourquodale that I will be posting soon. Might update you on what I’ve found out.
Post by: villajac29 on June 10, 2020, 12:01:31 PM
The Tribe has a long history of not trusting the department and non Tribal members. If the tribal Bio has good data that could be shared it would help a lot. I also wouldn't be surprised that old grudges die hard.I would also be all for opening up the units the Indians hunt for any elk in all seasons until they are gone. Hopefully it would open their eyes and get the Indians on board with some sort of a management plan and them rebuild the herds back up. It would suck short term but would be worth it long term.
It saddens me how many hunters are saying this... this is not management and conservation, it is throwing a temper tantrum. I spoke with a biologist today who has worked for the Yakamas and understands their harvest and the data surrounding it. According to him it is unlikely that out of 10,000 registered Yakamas (including babies, children and the elderly) that the hunting population which is even smaller harvests enough elk for it to become problematic.
We have to start looking big picture. If tribal members were over-harvesting to the point many of you saying they are the numbers wouldn't be stagnant they would be decreasing significantly each year. It just doesn't add up. Maybe just maybe if non-tribal hunters were less antagonistic towards something we can't change and started a conversation with tribal members and tried to connect with them to start to build a relationship maybe they would see the importance of reporting their harvest. It will be impossible to change anything if you are always so fervently opposed to tribes harvesting elk. It happened before the decline whether you were seeing it or not... it is sustainable. I just hope some people on here stop acting like children and being mindful enough to be patient and think through what really can be done to help things. And if its us that's sacrificing something that goes to show we really care about the wildlife not just "what I want".
Sorry for the soapbox but its hard listening to another person say we should just kill all the elk and start back where we were 100 years ago, makes me sick...
More communication is necessary to overcome this issue and neither side seems overly interested.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Glad someone else thinks so :tup:
Post by: villajac29 on June 10, 2020, 12:07:15 PM
When you talked to the 2 bios did you ask about the survey work? Which of the bios did the count, and what areas did they fly and why?counting a feed lot on a mild winter is what we like to call phoning it in. Just because a guy has been on the payroll for 30 years doesnt mean he is good at his job. I spend a whole lot of time in the hills and they are missing a lot of animals. They just are.So much of this is assuming that herds are down and need help. I can't and won't speak to the blues but theres nothing wrong in Colockum and yakima short of poor counting and slight dip in numbers following an all time high of just a few years ago.
KF's article is very telling. Colockum and yakima populations haven't really changed in the last 30 years because that's what the land will support. Despite the "explosion" of predators elk are still thriving. Weird.
I'm sorry to get back into discussion about this but from what I understand from talking to two biologists in the area who have been working in this field for 30+ years the elk are likely below objective. 2019 had a substantial late snow and counts were accurate enough to get an idea about overall population. Calf to Cow ratios are easy to get with feed sights because calves distribute more evenly within these populations. It's not just about overall populations. 800 animals below the "9000" objective line isn't much but it's enough to realize that at that number for whatever reason the elk aren't recruiting like when the total is at 10000+. If recruitment is low then harvest will be low.
Just like a bank account if you are taking more out than what goes in then you loose money. Very simple metaphor. Until the calf recruitment increases to 30+ we won't be able to harvest at a more liberal number.
I'd like to believe circumstantial evidence in you spending time in there but since your not the scientist doing surveys and data analysis which can sometimes be more insightful than actual surveys I'm incline to believe the people whose job its been for most of their lives.
We could spend our whole life in those hills and not be able to see everything... data analysis means that they are looking at more than just their survey data. I used to be skeptical like you but after two long discussions face to face with biologist's I'm incline to believe they know what they are doing.
For me 30 years is better resume than I spend a lot of time in the hills... sorry :dunno:
I listened to the podcast. It was interesting, but regardless of what my thoughts are on your proposals the $ impacts Trump everything. If you are going to dive deeper into this subject, you will need access to the bean counters. I will bet that interview/ conversation will be much harder to come by.
I Admire your passion and wish is was involved with one of the many great sportsmens groups in the state.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
The interesting part of that is Biologists rarely get involved with the dollars involved. That tends to happen in Olympia and with the commission. The Biologists I’ve talked to mainly focus on what the situation is and what can be done to effect it. A lot of what actually gets decided is how commissioners and others interpret what needs to be done. I’m gonna try to figure out at what level that happens? And try to have that conversation and record it for everyone. It definitely has to play a role but most biologists are focused on the animals not how revenue effects management.
Post by: villajac29 on June 10, 2020, 12:14:30 PM
So we have to agree with you or we don't know what we are talking about? You are grudgingly willing to side with us if we all want something else. But only if we provide empirical evidence (even though you don't) I think you may have a bit of tunnel vision. You know what you want and are twisting everything to fit that outcome.Here is my main beef with all of this Jacob. You keep trying to sell this as some beneficial thing for the herds and for all hunters. The simple fact is the herds aren't dying off. They just aren't. WDFW need to get better at counting elk and get permit numbers back up to where they should be.
As for the quality experience, you cannot take what you feel is quality and push it on others. Hunting every 5-10 years isn't acceptable. Add in the inevitable influx of NR hunters and it could be longer. I love big mature animals but I also enjoy my elk meat every year. Plenty of other ways to get better draw odds without destroying our hunting heritage.
They aren't dying off they just are suppressed. The truth is you can't just count your way back to 2014 numbers. It's not the same as it was and changing the number for the sake of it isn't gonna fix bad recruitment. They aren't that bad at counting I promise you...
I promise you I'm not pushing my idea of quality on others, read my post before this. If most hunters want the system as is I will support that, but I need to see accurate data to see what the majority really want. I don't think this poll does that but I think it is attainable. You could cap non-resident hunters like every other state does and benefits from. I think most people would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point that is why I think it is ridiculous that bulls are escaping to 10,11, and 12 years old under the current system. We don't need every bull to be 330"+. It would be nice to manage for a couple here and there for people who like that stuff but there is a middle ground. There's still strong hunting heritage in draw only state. That doesn't go away unless we let it...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It wouldn’t be that grudgingly. I haven’t hunted the east side in 2 years, and get resident prices in Oregon for being military. I’m gonna be okay. The things that get on my nerve is people pointing the finger at things they can’t change and saying “it’s their fault”. I’m sure I’m being effected by confirmation bias but I promise I’m doing my best to not be. I just thing that agreeing on something... anything is better than just fighting against each other and not telling the commission what we actually want as hunters. The loud minority can screw it up for the majority and I don’t want to do that. I’m trying my best to create a community where hunters can come vote on their opinion and whatever we can agree upon I’ll take to the commission but unless people get involved it’s not gonna go anywhere. My opinion matters little in this discussion just trying to offer alternative thought processes.
Post by: villajac29 on June 10, 2020, 12:46:16 PM
I haven't gone completely through this thread but what herds/units is he talking about? Does he want to manage all herds/units on East side the same as if they are one and thinks ALL have the same issues and problems?
I keep hearing by most on here that the Blues are in trouble and will believe that since I know nothing of the Blues. Also hear the Yakima herds are having issues by some on here and will not comment on those as I do not hunt them either but sounds like Karl thinks they are doing fine and that is a good enough opinion for me. I will go with someone spending tons of times in the hills before I will go with the biologists that sit at their desks and push numbers around, especially since I have never seen one of our local biologist in the field.
But as far as Manastash (Observatory), Taneum (Peaches Ridge), Teanaway and Colockum units, they are just fine. Cutting the permits in the Manastash and Taneum is a joke. The herds in these four units are doing fine, cows, calves and all age class of bulls.
I spend a ton of time in the hills nine months out of the year as my job affords it as I just work in the summer months. From January through April for the last 30 years I have been in these units almost every single day watching Elk and their movements and I have not once seen a biologist on the ground and I know who they are. I have seen them flying around in helos occasionally and they are never out there until noonish or later when the bulls are already bedded down in the timber for the day. Sure they can fly around down low in the winter and count their herds of cows, calves and younger bulls but if they want to count their mature bulls (even on big winter years) they need to get up a hell of a lot earlier and strap on some snowshoes, they would be quite surprised how many mature bulls there are and what never comes down to the winter welfare elk in feed lots. We also do not see them flying in the higher elevations where all these big lonely bulls are wintering and that may be due to the weather or danger of up drafts? One year they showed up at 1PM landed in the snow and talked to me. They asked me what I was doing and if I had seen any bulls? I asked them what they were doing? They said "counting mature bulls so they could figure out their branch bull numbers for the upcoming season" This happened on April 1st LOL
Lots of complaining about hunting sucks for spike bulls but why are there always a bunch of spikes running around after hunting season and in our feedlots and around the outskirts all winter.
Hunting elk every year is a tradition in our huge family and we always fill most of our kids spike tags and when we do get lucky and draw a special branched antlered tag we have a great hunt and always fill the tag with a smoker bull. If we do not draw a special branched tag we can always go hunt branched bulls in the any elk units. We live on a ranch and have cattle but we would rather eat elk and fill our freezers with cow tags, OTC spikes and the occasional mature bull. Getting out hunting elk every year with family and friends is what I live for.
Leave it alone and go back to more bull tags in the Manastash (Observatory) and Taneum (Peaches Ridge) cause the four units mentioned above have plenty of mature bulls and cutting the tags is ridiculous.
Maybe there are issues in some units but certainly not in all of them, managing them all the same by taking OTC hunting away from everyone and only being able to hunt elk every three to five years is BS. I like hunting elk and eating spikes with the slim chance of hunting mature bulls.
WDFW and their biologist do not and can not manage themselves let alone our elk herds. For years they weren't giving out enough permits for mature bulls in the Colockum and they were dying of old age, they didn't believe any of us locals on what they had up there. They finally started giving out more tags then started cutting them in the other units.
We have some great elk hunting in this state and IMO when you draw a tag you have a better chance of killing a smoker bull then any other state and I have killed and hunted in a lot of the other Western states for elk.
You can't and shouldn't manage all the Eastside elk units the same with drawing every 3 to 5 years to hunt elk. I'm all for figuring out a system that will give us all a better chance to draw more often but shutting down OTC hunting of elk is not the answer.
Start killing more predators is a great start for all of our ungulates. And more scouting then hunting will notch your tags.
I respect your dedication to these elk and you seem like an impressive hunter. I will address issues I saw when reading.
I can’t speak to what the biologists were doing on April 1st looking for bulls... that seems completely ridiculous I agree. Also if bulls are reaching old age and dying there is a need for more opportunity to be given.
However from what I have understood in my conversations is that bull numbers play little into how tag allocations happen. They are likely off of there bull to cow ratios but they are currently projected to harvest above 100% of their calf recruitment for the year(counting in other factors). If they have poor recruitment and high spike harvest every year you just can’t give out as many bull tags. You said yourself they are counting cows and calves all day. That is why is because it is a more important metric. Those numbers are much easier to get accurate and if they do get it right they know how many elk are going in so that in turn means you can only take so many out without seeing an overall change in population.
Speaking to your success rates... you are the MINORITY. Not everyone has the chance to watch the elk every day and understand patterns like you and your family. The truth is very few people are successful year to year and as much as you want to protect your niche success it doesn’t improve opportunity for everyone else. The success rates are consistent, which means people continue to not have a chance to harvest. Yes there are varying levels of dedication which plays a huge part but in other states people who aren’t successful here are successful there. I like to see other people’s success maybe you don’t but it doesn’t bode well for getting people involved with hunting. Being selfish with hunting and success will spell the end for involvement and hunting in the long run.
The average draw permit success/tags allotted for the past few seasons is 28.5%. Those are the same people hunting OTC spike and somehow they are more successful. My point is that it is currently not managed for success but it is managed for unlimited spike opportunity. If you changed stuff up you could improve success and opportunity at branch bulls.
Not everyone wants to kill a smoker, most would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point. And also haven’t you thought the reason you don’t kill bigger bulls in other areas is management objectives and the fact you can’t spend every day in other states. I’m sorry this idea is attacking your small piece of the pie you’ve made work for tour friends and family but most others aren’t getting opportunity or success. I’m not trying to make hunting socialistic(that is ridiculous) but it can be managed for more than just the very small minority who find success under the current system.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 10, 2020, 12:59:53 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 10, 2020, 02:07:01 PM
I haven't gone completely through this thread but what herds/units is he talking about? Does he want to manage all herds/units on East side the same as if they are one and thinks ALL have the same issues and problems?
I keep hearing by most on here that the Blues are in trouble and will believe that since I know nothing of the Blues. Also hear the Yakima herds are having issues by some on here and will not comment on those as I do not hunt them either but sounds like Karl thinks they are doing fine and that is a good enough opinion for me. I will go with someone spending tons of times in the hills before I will go with the biologists that sit at their desks and push numbers around, especially since I have never seen one of our local biologist in the field.
But as far as Manastash (Observatory), Taneum (Peaches Ridge), Teanaway and Colockum units, they are just fine. Cutting the permits in the Manastash and Taneum is a joke. The herds in these four units are doing fine, cows, calves and all age class of bulls.
I spend a ton of time in the hills nine months out of the year as my job affords it as I just work in the summer months. From January through April for the last 30 years I have been in these units almost every single day watching Elk and their movements and I have not once seen a biologist on the ground and I know who they are. I have seen them flying around in helos occasionally and they are never out there until noonish or later when the bulls are already bedded down in the timber for the day. Sure they can fly around down low in the winter and count their herds of cows, calves and younger bulls but if they want to count their mature bulls (even on big winter years) they need to get up a hell of a lot earlier and strap on some snowshoes, they would be quite surprised how many mature bulls there are and what never comes down to the winter welfare elk in feed lots. We also do not see them flying in the higher elevations where all these big lonely bulls are wintering and that may be due to the weather or danger of up drafts? One year they showed up at 1PM landed in the snow and talked to me. They asked me what I was doing and if I had seen any bulls? I asked them what they were doing? They said "counting mature bulls so they could figure out their branch bull numbers for the upcoming season" This happened on April 1st LOL
Lots of complaining about hunting sucks for spike bulls but why are there always a bunch of spikes running around after hunting season and in our feedlots and around the outskirts all winter.
Hunting elk every year is a tradition in our huge family and we always fill most of our kids spike tags and when we do get lucky and draw a special branched antlered tag we have a great hunt and always fill the tag with a smoker bull. If we do not draw a special branched tag we can always go hunt branched bulls in the any elk units. We live on a ranch and have cattle but we would rather eat elk and fill our freezers with cow tags, OTC spikes and the occasional mature bull. Getting out hunting elk every year with family and friends is what I live for.
Leave it alone and go back to more bull tags in the Manastash (Observatory) and Taneum (Peaches Ridge) cause the four units mentioned above have plenty of mature bulls and cutting the tags is ridiculous.
Maybe there are issues in some units but certainly not in all of them, managing them all the same by taking OTC hunting away from everyone and only being able to hunt elk every three to five years is BS. I like hunting elk and eating spikes with the slim chance of hunting mature bulls.
WDFW and their biologist do not and can not manage themselves let alone our elk herds. For years they weren't giving out enough permits for mature bulls in the Colockum and they were dying of old age, they didn't believe any of us locals on what they had up there. They finally started giving out more tags then started cutting them in the other units.
We have some great elk hunting in this state and IMO when you draw a tag you have a better chance of killing a smoker bull then any other state and I have killed and hunted in a lot of the other Western states for elk.
You can't and shouldn't manage all the Eastside elk units the same with drawing every 3 to 5 years to hunt elk. I'm all for figuring out a system that will give us all a better chance to draw more often but shutting down OTC hunting of elk is not the answer.
Start killing more predators is a great start for all of our ungulates. And more scouting then hunting will notch your tags.
I respect your dedication to these elk and you seem like an impressive hunter. I will address issues I saw when reading.
I can’t speak to what the biologists were doing on April 1st looking for bulls... that seems completely ridiculous I agree. Also if bulls are reaching old age and dying there is a need for more opportunity to be given.
However from what I have understood in my conversations is that bull numbers play little into how tag allocations happen. They are likely off of there bull to cow ratios but they are currently projected to harvest above 100% of their calf recruitment for the year(counting in other factors). If they have poor recruitment and high spike harvest every year you just can’t give out as many bull tags. You said yourself they are counting cows and calves all day. That is why is because it is a more important metric. Those numbers are much easier to get accurate and if they do get it right they know how many elk are going in so that in turn means you can only take so many out without seeing an overall change in population.
Speaking to your success rates... you are the MINORITY. Not everyone has the chance to watch the elk every day and understand patterns like you and your family. The truth is very few people are successful year to year and as much as you want to protect your niche success it doesn’t improve opportunity for everyone else. The success rates are consistent, which means people continue to not have a chance to harvest. Yes there are varying levels of dedication which plays a huge part but in other states people who aren’t successful here are successful there. I like to see other people’s success maybe you don’t but it doesn’t bode well for getting people involved with hunting. Being selfish with hunting and success will spell the end for involvement and hunting in the long run.
The average draw permit success/tags allotted for the past few seasons is 28.5%. Those are the same people hunting OTC spike and somehow they are more successful. My point is that it is currently not managed for success but it is managed for unlimited spike opportunity. If you changed stuff up you could improve success and opportunity at branch bulls.
Not everyone wants to kill a smoker, most would be happy with a 3.5 year old 5 point. And also haven’t you thought the reason you don’t kill bigger bulls in other areas is management objectives and the fact you can’t spend every day in other states. I’m sorry this idea is attacking your small piece of the pie you’ve made work for tour friends and family but most others aren’t getting opportunity or success. I’m not trying to make hunting socialistic(that is ridiculous) but it can be managed for more than just the very small minority who find success under the current system.
1. Opportunity…..Has many differing variables. You have your version, but the majority have a different version. I would be guessing, but am confident I am correct in stating that being able to have the chance to hunt (opportunity) is far more important to most than the chance (opportunity) to hunt more mature bulls every 3-5-? years.
2. "which means People continue to not have a chance to harvest" REALLY :bash: OTC offers every single hunter a chance (opportunity) to harvest, If they don't that's on them.
3. "Not everyone wants to kill a smoker" My guess is again your mostly wrong. Tell me who, that is a regular elk hunter DOESNT want to kill a big bull? of course we settle for less, but we still want to. More meat/more antlers= more good.
I understand your passion, but feel you are pushing (hard) for your ideals of opportunity. You seem to have an answer for every person that replies to you, and then shoot down their opinion.
Lastly......KARMA. I remember the thread about what happened with you. I am sorry but I put a lot of stock in actions, and yours then(for whatever your reasons) left a bad taste in my memory. These threads (this and another) scream at me.....Jacob wants what Jacob wants...…...not that Jacob is trying to do better for ALL elk hunters. :twocents:
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 10, 2020, 03:13:04 PM
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 10, 2020, 04:29:18 PM
Post by: Pinetar on June 10, 2020, 08:42:08 PM
Selfish?? Where did that come from Villajac? You don't know me or have any idea who I am. Last season, I spent almost every day during all three season in the field during elk season. Mostly with kids and not just mine, several special tag holders and think I packed my own weapon maybe twice. When my daughter shot her spike there was 5 other legal spikes in the herd, she wanted me to shoot one with my tag and i told her "no I'm good" cause it was her moment not mine and you call me selfish.
Seemed like you were looking for some answers and opinions on WA elk hunting and the draw system? I give you my honest opinion and it doesn't fit your agenda so you pop off and call me selfish.
That was a pretty big statement and I appreciate the kind words but there are a lot of people in this county that know elk better than I. Thanks for having my back Karl, seems like there always has to be that one guy :chuckle:
Post by: Limhangerslayer on June 10, 2020, 09:51:13 PM
I almost didn't post this morning but I really just wanted to bring a little positive spin to what was becoming a doom and gloom post of elk hunting in WA.:yeah: very well said.
Selfish?? Where did that come from Villajac? You don't know me or have any idea who I am. I spent almost every day during all three season in the field during elk season. Mostly with kids and not just mine, several special tag holders and think I packed my own weapon maybe twice. When my daughter shot her spike there was 5 other legal spikes in the herd, she wanted me to shoot one with my tag and i told her "no I'm good" cause it was her moment not mine and you call me selfish.
Seemed like you were looking for some answers and opinions on WA elk hunting and the draw system? I give you my honest opinion and it doesn't fit your agenda so you pop off and call me selfish.
That was a pretty big statement and I appreciate the kind words but there are a lot of people in this county that know elk better than I. Thanks for having my back Karl, seems like there always has to be that one guy :chuckle:
Post by: villajac29 on June 11, 2020, 09:19:56 AM
You are so far off on Pinetar its insulting Jacob. He has helped to grow hunting and helped more people harvest animals then you could ever dream of in your lifetime. You cannot come onto a forum such as this without knowing any of the players and try to make assumptions about them, their experience, and knowledge base. Its offensive!
I don't know what I said that was offensive. I just tried to address some of the issues I saw with his argument. Again, I think this is a poor medium to display true intentions. I'm not here to hurt any feelings or offend anyone. We can have differing opinions and still respect each other, that much should be true. He seems like a great outdoorsman, but talking about circumstantial experiences of success from a person who is very involved in that area isn't representative of the actual experiences people are having in that area from a success standpoint. The minority who are successful from year to year need to see it from the huge majority that are unsuccessful. I've had so many people contact me about how the have either stopped hunting the eastside due to unsuccessful hunts or over crowding I know those people are out there. On top of that when success rates are 2-3% of the people hunting district 8 that means that 16000 out of 16500 people were unsuccessful.
That doesn't seem positive to me, again that is just my opinion. I'm sorry you haven't had a chance to meet me and understand the way I am approaching this. I'm not a bad guy, or arrogant, or whatever else speaking through long winded text has made you think I am. I was never attacking him directly for anything that he's done. Someone that interested in being out in the woods and watching elk would be someone I would very much like to get to know. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Post by: rtspring on June 11, 2020, 10:11:32 AM
You are so far off on Pinetar its insulting Jacob. He has helped to grow hunting and helped more people harvest animals then you could ever dream of in your lifetime. You cannot come onto a forum such as this without knowing any of the players and try to make assumptions about them, their experience, and knowledge base. Its offensive!
I don't know what I said that was offensive. I just tried to address some of the issues I saw with his argument. Again, I think this is a poor medium to display true intentions. I'm not here to hurt any feelings or offend anyone. We can have differing opinions and still respect each other, that much should be true. He seems like a great outdoorsman, but talking about circumstantial experiences of success from a person who is very involved in that area isn't representative of the actual experiences people are having in that area from a success standpoint. The minority who are successful from year to year need to see it from the huge majority that are unsuccessful. I've had so many people contact me about how the have either stopped hunting the eastside due to unsuccessful hunts or over crowding I know those people are out there. On top of that when success rates are 2-3% of the people hunting district 8 that means that 16000 out of 16500 people were unsuccessful.
That doesn't seem positive to me, again that is just my opinion. I'm sorry you haven't had a chance to meet me and understand the way I am approaching this. I'm not a bad guy, or arrogant, or whatever else speaking through long winded text has made you think I am. I was never attacking him directly for anything that he's done. Someone that interested in being out in the woods and watching elk would be someone I would very much like to get to know. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Your bio info is wrong!!! Not by a little by a lot!!! I too spend many days in the yakima units. I have three weeks time in there already. There is truly no way to get a good number count on the elk. But I can promise you the numbers are as misleading as ever. I never have a problem seeing elk, finding elk! I have helped numerous tag holders over the years, we went 100 percent success rate on bulls. With the one exception being my tag, I wanted a monster and had several chances but could not close the deal.
I’m gonna toot blrmans horn a little here.. He is a guy that when he speaks about hunting you should listen, he has been there done that. You don’t get his education and understanding of elk from sitting on a couch. He puts the miles and time in, if they come better than him. I haven’t found anyone that has as much knowledge as he at such a young age. Hes a good dude. There are “ hunters” and then there is “HUNTERS”. Listen and learn.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 11, 2020, 10:16:22 AM
Spikes aren't hard to find and kill. You and Dan talking about how they are an anomaly in the woods shows your lack of experience. They are the least intelligent elk you can hunt besides a calf and can be killed with great regularity. You can't manage your way to becoming a better and more successful hunter. I don't know a single hunter that ACTUALLY applies themselves that doesn't kill an elk every few years. The key word is ACTUALLY though. Those who haven't killed an elk in 20 years will find no more success hunting an older and smarter animal. That's fact. If you could pick apart success rates into individuals for multiple years you would still see the same names over and over again. Regardless of weapon, season, state, or species.
You have stated over and over that if the hunters of WA really care more about hunting every year then you would let it lie. Well it's been stated over and over. Every hunter survey that I can ever remember has had the same consensus, we wanna hunt every year. You seem to dismiss that though :dunno:
Lastly, I'll say it for the 10th time, I'm not even apposed to permit only but not until data collection catches up with 2020. There is too little data collection and too much reactionary knee jerk management. DO NOT PUT THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE. permit only may be the ultimate answer but not until other avenues are exhausted. My older brother was doing this exact same research and analysis before you were even thinking about hunting. The difference was he listened.
Thanks RT :tup:
Post by: ctwiggs1 on June 11, 2020, 10:36:04 AM
Why would I call? So you can tell me I'm wrong over the phone as well as in text :dunno: you want to talk and not listen. Every time someone with a long and detailed knowledge base of our elk herds says anything you try and minimalize and discredit their experiences. That's not having a conversation, that's waiting for your turn to talk. Even with Pinetar who flat out knows more about kittitas elk than anyone working for wdfw you still try and pick apart his comments :dunno:
Spikes aren't hard to find and kill. You and Dan talking about how they are an anomaly in the woods shows your lack of experience. They are the least intelligent elk you can hunt besides a calf and can be killed with great regularity. You can't manage your way to becoming a better and more successful hunter. I don't know a single hunter that ACTUALLY applies themselves that doesn't kill an elk every few years. The key word is ACTUALLY though. Those who haven't killed an elk in 20 years will find no more success hunting an older and smarter animal. That's fact. If you could pick apart success rates into individuals for multiple years you would still see the same names over and over again. Regardless of weapon, season, state, or species.
You have stated over and over that if the hunters of WA really care more about hunting every year then you would let it lie. Well it's been stated over and over. Every hunter survey that I can ever remember has had the same consensus, we wanna hunt every year. You seem to dismiss that though :dunno:
Lastly, I'll say it for the 10th time, I'm not even apposed to permit only but not until data collection catches up with 2020. There is too little data collection and too much reactionary knee jerk management. DO NOT PUT THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE. permit only may be the ultimate answer but not until other avenues are exhausted. My older brother was doing this exact same research and analysis before you were even thinking about hunting. The difference was he listened.
Thanks RT :tup:
Karl, you're dead wrong here. It's *opposed*.
Geez man, learn how to hunt.
Post by: coachcw on June 11, 2020, 10:37:58 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 11, 2020, 10:43:36 AM
Post by: jstone on June 11, 2020, 10:50:55 AM
Thank you guys for your information!! I will always listen to the guys who know!!
Post by: dilleytech on June 11, 2020, 11:15:15 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on June 11, 2020, 02:06:30 PM
Why would I call? So you can tell me I'm wrong over the phone as well as in text :dunno: you want to talk and not listen. Every time someone with a long and detailed knowledge base of our elk herds says anything you try and minimalize and discredit their experiences. That's not having a conversation, that's waiting for your turn to talk. Even with Pinetar who flat out knows more about kittitas elk than anyone working for wdfw you still try and pick apart his comments :dunno:So how do we get them to issue more permits? Right now the permit levels are a joke. A spike only archery season with no OTC cow opportunities is not much opportunity.
Spikes aren't hard to find and kill. You and Dan talking about how they are an anomaly in the woods shows your lack of experience. They are the least intelligent elk you can hunt besides a calf and can be killed with great regularity. You can't manage your way to becoming a better and more successful hunter. I don't know a single hunter that ACTUALLY applies themselves that doesn't kill an elk every few years. The key word is ACTUALLY though. Those who haven't killed an elk in 20 years will find no more success hunting an older and smarter animal. That's fact. If you could pick apart success rates into individuals for multiple years you would still see the same names over and over again. Regardless of weapon, season, state, or species.
You have stated over and over that if the hunters of WA really care more about hunting every year then you would let it lie. Well it's been stated over and over. Every hunter survey that I can ever remember has had the same consensus, we wanna hunt every year. You seem to dismiss that though :dunno:
Lastly, I'll say it for the 10th time, I'm not even apposed to permit only but not until data collection catches up with 2020. There is too little data collection and too much reactionary knee jerk management. DO NOT PUT THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE. permit only may be the ultimate answer but not until other avenues are exhausted. My older brother was doing this exact same research and analysis before you were even thinking about hunting. The difference was he listened.
Thanks RT :tup:
I really want to know our options. The game department is not listening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: dreamingbig on June 11, 2020, 02:09:50 PM
I haven't gone completely through this thread but what herds/units is he talking about? Does he want to manage all herds/units on East side the same as if they are one and thinks ALL have the same issues and problems?So how do we get them to issue more permits? Right now the permit levels are a joke. A spike only archery season with no OTC cow opportunities is not much opportunity.
I keep hearing by most on here that the Blues are in trouble and will believe that since I know nothing of the Blues. Also hear the Yakima herds are having issues by some on here and will not comment on those as I do not hunt them either but sounds like Karl thinks they are doing fine and that is a good enough opinion for me. I will go with someone spending tons of times in the hills before I will go with the biologists that sit at their desks and push numbers around, especially since I have never seen one of our local biologist in the field.
But as far as Manastash (Observatory), Taneum (Peaches Ridge), Teanaway and Colockum units, they are just fine. Cutting the permits in the Manastash and Taneum is a joke. The herds in these four units are doing fine, cows, calves and all age class of bulls.
I spend a ton of time in the hills nine months out of the year as my job affords it as I just work in the summer months. From January through April for the last 30 years I have been in these units almost every single day watching Elk and their movements and I have not once seen a biologist on the ground and I know who they are. I have seen them flying around in helos occasionally and they are never out there until noonish or later when the bulls are already bedded down in the timber for the day. Sure they can fly around down low in the winter and count their herds of cows, calves and younger bulls but if they want to count their mature bulls (even on big winter years) they need to get up a hell of a lot earlier and strap on some snowshoes, they would be quite surprised how many mature bulls there are and what never comes down to the winter welfare elk in feed lots. We also do not see them flying in the higher elevations where all these big lonely bulls are wintering and that may be due to the weather or danger of up drafts? One year they showed up at 1PM landed in the snow and talked to me. They asked me what I was doing and if I had seen any bulls? I asked them what they were doing? They said "counting mature bulls so they could figure out their branch bull numbers for the upcoming season" This happened on April 1st LOL
Lots of complaining about hunting sucks for spike bulls but why are there always a bunch of spikes running around after hunting season and in our feedlots and around the outskirts all winter.
Hunting elk every year is a tradition in our huge family and we always fill most of our kids spike tags and when we do get lucky and draw a special branched antlered tag we have a great hunt and always fill the tag with a smoker bull. If we do not draw a special branched tag we can always go hunt branched bulls in the any elk units. We live on a ranch and have cattle but we would rather eat elk and fill our freezers with cow tags, OTC spikes and the occasional mature bull. Getting out hunting elk every year with family and friends is what I live for.
Leave it alone and go back to more bull tags in the Manastash (Observatory) and Taneum (Peaches Ridge) cause the four units mentioned above have plenty of mature bulls and cutting the tags is ridiculous.
Maybe there are issues in some units but certainly not in all of them, managing them all the same by taking OTC hunting away from everyone and only being able to hunt elk every three to five years is BS. I like hunting elk and eating spikes with the slim chance of hunting mature bulls.
WDFW and their biologist do not and can not manage themselves let alone our elk herds. For years they weren't giving out enough permits for mature bulls in the Colockum and they were dying of old age, they didn't believe any of us locals on what they had up there. They finally started giving out more tags then started cutting them in the other units.
We have some great elk hunting in this state and IMO when you draw a tag you have a better chance of killing a smoker bull then any other state and I have killed and hunted in a lot of the other Western states for elk.
You can't and shouldn't manage all the Eastside elk units the same with drawing every 3 to 5 years to hunt elk. I'm all for figuring out a system that will give us all a better chance to draw more often but shutting down OTC hunting of elk is not the answer.
Start killing more predators is a great start for all of our ungulates. And more scouting then hunting will notch your tags.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Northforker on June 12, 2020, 12:00:26 AM
:yeah:This will never be fixedBingo!!! You nailed it! Sad but absolutely true!! It will go up and down like the stock market. Some years a little better than others but over the long haul it will go downward if nothing is done. Being that WDFW has no control over native hunting and predators, and that their desire for funds is more than their desire for management, it will as you said, "This will never be fixed"!
In other states like Montana and Wyoming, natives that hunt off of the reservations have to follow the same rules as the rest of the people. In those states they are letting people hunt and trap wolves along with using dogs to hunt cougars and bears to keep the predators under control. Don't blame WDFW for this, it is the liberal agenda, tree-hugger's, and Liberal judges that will never let this happen in our state. If they weren't making a mint off of our revenue for the general fund and their social programs, hunting would probably already be outlawed in our state. King County makes all the rules in this state and it is full of fruits and nuts.
Post by: Bango skank on June 12, 2020, 12:23:04 AM
Why would I call? So you can tell me I'm wrong over the phone as well as in text :dunno: you want to talk and not listen. Every time someone with a long and detailed knowledge base of our elk herds says anything you try and minimalize and discredit their experiences. That's not having a conversation, that's waiting for your turn to talk. Even with Pinetar who flat out knows more about kittitas elk than anyone working for wdfw you still try and pick apart his comments :dunno:So how do we get them to issue more permits? Right now the permit levels are a joke. A spike only archery season with no OTC cow opportunities is not much opportunity.
Spikes aren't hard to find and kill. You and Dan talking about how they are an anomaly in the woods shows your lack of experience. They are the least intelligent elk you can hunt besides a calf and can be killed with great regularity. You can't manage your way to becoming a better and more successful hunter. I don't know a single hunter that ACTUALLY applies themselves that doesn't kill an elk every few years. The key word is ACTUALLY though. Those who haven't killed an elk in 20 years will find no more success hunting an older and smarter animal. That's fact. If you could pick apart success rates into individuals for multiple years you would still see the same names over and over again. Regardless of weapon, season, state, or species.
You have stated over and over that if the hunters of WA really care more about hunting every year then you would let it lie. Well it's been stated over and over. Every hunter survey that I can ever remember has had the same consensus, we wanna hunt every year. You seem to dismiss that though :dunno:
Lastly, I'll say it for the 10th time, I'm not even apposed to permit only but not until data collection catches up with 2020. There is too little data collection and too much reactionary knee jerk management. DO NOT PUT THE CART IN FRONT OF THE HORSE. permit only may be the ultimate answer but not until other avenues are exhausted. My older brother was doing this exact same research and analysis before you were even thinking about hunting. The difference was he listened.
Thanks RT :tup:
I really want to know our options. The game department is not listening.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hate to say it, but your only real option is to figure out another area to hunt elk. Whether that means a different part of washington, or heading out of state, thats what your options are for better opportunity.
Post by: jdb on June 12, 2020, 07:41:07 AM
Post by: Special T on June 12, 2020, 07:58:03 AM
There is a lot of really good information in this thread. Very little of it by the OPI'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. The OP whole post is very informative. ALL of his solutions focus on single species management. It reminds me of what I have heard from the department in the past with a slightly different take. He is right that Currently the 2 big issues predators and Tribal harvest cannot be changed. BUT we have an opportunity...
The 25 year strategic plan discussion is underway.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/about/administration/strategic-planning
The current Game management plan will be expire in 2021 which means that process is in motion.
https://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/regulations/season-setting
There is only certain times you can affect changes in predator control and it is during these times. NOW that the opportunity is here dont be lulled into dispare and complacency.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: idahohuntr on June 12, 2020, 08:08:37 AM
I want to clarify that bolded part - that is not accurate. A Tribes hunting 'rules' off-reservation are largely going to be dictated by whether they have a treaty and what it says. There are hundreds of Tribes in the US and so there is a lot of variability and complexity in each case. There are many Tribes in Wy and MT with off-reservation hunting rights and the recent Herrera case clarified this for the folks in Wyoming who mistakenly believed they had jurisdiction over a tribal member hunting elk off reservation.:yeah:This will never be fixedBingo!!! You nailed it! Sad but absolutely true!! It will go up and down like the stock market. Some years a little better than others but over the long haul it will go downward if nothing is done. Being that WDFW has no control over native hunting and predators, and that their desire for funds is more than their desire for management, it will as you said, "This will never be fixed"!
In other states like Montana and Wyoming, natives that hunt off of the reservations have to follow the same rules as the rest of the people. In those states they are letting people hunt and trap wolves along with using dogs to hunt cougars and bears to keep the predators under control. Don't blame WDFW for this, it is the liberal agenda, tree-hugger's, and Liberal judges that will never let this happen in our state. If they weren't making a mint off of our revenue for the general fund and their social programs, hunting would probably already be outlawed in our state. King County makes all the rules in this state and it is full of fruits and nuts.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 15, 2020, 08:39:11 AM
Post by: Mfowl on June 15, 2020, 08:42:14 AM
So it is spring time in the Naneum. This weekend I watched a herd of cows and calves. There were 49 cows, 49 calves and 2 spikes. Some of the cows looked too small to have given birth so I assume some of the calves were twins. It will be very interesting to see how many calves I see running around come September/October. Just as many calves at that time will be awesome. A drastic drop will mean the predators are eating well.
Glad that hear this! :tup: Things seem plenty lush and green in the hills. Hopefully the forage holds up and they stay healthy going in to winter!
Post by: GameHunter1959 on June 18, 2020, 02:48:59 AM
The one thing I have never trusted is the harvest numbers. I know the unit we hunt extremely well. I spend time watching the Deer and Elk throughout the year. Noway are the harvest reports accurate for the amount of Bucks killed. We went over it one year at Deer Camp, as I was curious to hear the opinions of others who have hunted the GMU for 55+ years. All agreed that the harvest numbers are way off. Not even close to reality. It’s laughable...
Post by: dilleytech on June 18, 2020, 07:51:10 AM
IMO - Elk Hunting is an Art. Those that put in the time prior to the season opening, hike deep into the woods, hunt dark holes and drainages, are the ones that are most successful. Special Permits don’t guarantee anyone anything but a different opportunity that is limited to one or a handful of hunters. They could give out tons of Bull permits, which is great, but you still have to fulfill all the steps pre-season and during the season if you want to fill your permit.
The one thing I have never trusted is the harvest numbers. I know the unit we hunt extremely well. I spend time watching the Deer and Elk throughout the year. Noway are the harvest reports accurate for the amount of Bucks killed. We went over it one year at Deer Camp, as I was curious to hear the opinions of others who have hunted the GMU for 55+ years. All agreed that the harvest numbers are way off. Not even close to reality. It’s laughable...
Agreed but the great thing about elk hunting is they are big noisy dumb forest cows. You don’t really need to know exactly where they are. Just go put on the miles. Your right, The harvest numbers aren’t accurate. A lot of hunters say unsuccessful no matter what.
Post by: Threewolves on June 18, 2020, 09:30:48 AM
Post by: huntingaddiction on June 18, 2020, 09:37:28 AM
I thought it was draw only except spikes? There are no spikes so doesn’t matter but yea if question is no spike tags yea do it.:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: No spikes? Ok, you wanna know how many we saw late archery season last year? :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Rainier10 on June 18, 2020, 09:40:46 AM
You could choose OTC and hunt all west side units that are OTC and put in for west side permits or hunt any east side unit that was OTC. If you chose permit only tag you could only put in for eastside or westside permits.