Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:13:22 PM
Option 1: General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state. I've done a lot of research on the topic and found that shifting the harvest of those spikes into a draw only system would increase tag allocation by 3-6 times what they were in the past 10 years. By allocating tags based off of sustainable bull numbers paired with average hunter success in the state in draw hunts ( around 28.5%) the WDFW would've be able to allocate 2835 tags last year vs 508. At the average bull harvest in the quality managed herds of 1234 the WDFW would be able to give out 4329! This would also help in preventing over harvest in years of high general season success depending on weather and hunting conditions. This alone would improve draw odds.
Option 2: Harvest for draw tags would move to 3 point min or brow tine restriction to allow spikes to escape. This would transfer the bulk of each years crop of new bulls into the older age classes. With conservative harvest of 20-25% of the bull population there would be escapement of bulls into mature age classes maintaining the chance at a mature animal if not improving it. I have discussed this with a Montana Wildlife Biologist and she supported that this would be feasible if managed under a draw only system. This would give those less interested in headgear the chance to shoot a larger bodied raghorn than a spike or hold out for a 5+ year old bull. Stratifying harvest would remove pressure on a single age class and allow escapement into maturity.
Option 3: This proposal would model Idaho and apply statewide. There are 10 recognized elk herds that reside in Washington and the amount of hunters requires further focus than just East/West. This would apply like the East/West management of today, as in you would have to purchase a tag by zone. If the zone is draw only you would have the chance to draw an antlerless tag/bull tag/ or quality tag. If none of these were drawn you would forgo elk hunting that season. For OTC units hunters would be able to apply for draw hunts in that zone or build points. If the OTC zones got over-pressured after implementation then there would likely have to be a tag cap filled at a first come first serve basis. This would focus hunters into determining what they want to do rather than for example, someone buying an eastside tag/ compete with everyone and their mother in the draw for colockum and blues tags and if they don't draw hunt OTC options in Yakima or Selkirk competing once again with everyone and their mother.
Option 4:Tag allocation based on hunter participation: I noticed in years prior the WDFW was giving out the same amount of antlerless tags to rifle hunters and muzzleloader hunters. While I'm sure the muzzy hunters were loving it the truth is they only make up about 12% of hunters in the Yakima Herd and similar numbers in other herds. What I propose would be as follows. Say the WDFW thinks they should harvest 100 Bulls in a unit, since the breakdown is about (61% Modern hunters/27% Archery/12% Muzzy) that would mean that 61 bulls go to modern hunters. This would break down into 16 for early rifle tags and 45 for late season. Divide those numbers into the average success of those hunts and you get something like 23 tags for early rifle @70% success and 129 tags @ 35% success. For archery it would be 27 bulls to harvest @13% success which equals 208 tags. Muzzleloaders would get 12 Bulls @ 25% success which would translate to 48 tags. The WDFW could do this for individual herd and individual unit success rates to make opportunity as accurate and fair as possible:
Option 5: When talking to a Montana Wildlife Bio she was blown away by how short our seasons were. She told me she had seen data that supported that harvest success wasn't hugely effected by longer seasons and that it decreases pressure on animals and competition among hunters. If the WDFW split seasons and increased the amount of time given to hunters it would make our experiences much better while not piling every hunter into one or two weekends and pressuring just about every animal in the unit.
Option 6: Nevada currently manages a mere 13000 elk compared to our 17,500 rocky mountain elk along even in a below objective year. They release 2500 bull tags last year and have an average hunter success of 45% with a statewide bull to cow ratio of 46:100. These numbers are attained through a draw only system where their residents have much higher chance of drawing. They do however have a 7 year waiting period regardless of harvest because the experiences of their hunts are so good. I propose something shorter about 3 or 4 years whatever works better for Quality and Bull categories. This would get a huge amount of hunters out of the application pools who already got to experience a hunt giving those who just started hunting a better chance to draw a tag. This would have huge effects on odds down the road.
Option 7: This one is simple having 2 options in quality categories and 4 in bull and antlerless clogs up the application pools especially in areas that don't release a lot of tags. Cutting these by half would focus hunters on what hunt they truly want to experience giving themselves and others a better shot at drawing.
Option 8: This proposal mirrors Idaho in that it would make our Once in a Lifetime tags drawable again. The caviot is you have to pick on whether you apply for Deer/Elk or Moose or Goat or Sheep. For example say you really want to draw a moose tag, then you would have to not put your name in the hat for any other species. Since most people would want to draw a deer or elk tag that makes the odds for OIL tags grow exponentially because they are currently incredibly low. This would also prevent competition for those putting in for deer and elk making there odds grow even more. I don't see a downside to this one because being able to apply for all of them and having terrible odds across the board doesn't beat better odds for every species and having to pick.
Hope this helps! Let me know what you think and maybe things to add or take away. Thanks!
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2020, 08:16:14 PM
Post by: grousetracker on June 01, 2020, 08:21:47 PM
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on June 01, 2020, 08:22:52 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2020, 08:24:13 PM
can't take away my points I have 30 this year in all quality categories. just fire all wdfw employees, start new!
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
Post by: Skillet on June 01, 2020, 08:35:16 PM
The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags. The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.
Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others. You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.
Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you). And more...
It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA. It's like a state income tax.
Only my opinion, of course.
Post by: Special T on June 01, 2020, 08:40:29 PM
You state as a fact that "General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state." That's an opinion, not a fact.It might be you opinion but it is well reasoned.
The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags. The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.
Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others. You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.
Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you). And more...
It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA. It's like a state income tax.
Only my opinion, of course.
Jacob, are you currently aware of the allocation model used to allot tags and set seasons?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Post by: wildskywashington29 on June 01, 2020, 08:45:54 PM
How about eliminate the point system all together.
I would be in support of that, there would just have to be a way to help out those guys who have been putting in for 20+ years if we transitioned because even though they would get better odds because of this they wouldn't get anything in return for their support of the state through application fees. I might develop a proposal around something like that as well.
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2020, 08:48:26 PM
How about eliminate the point system all together.
I would be in support of that, there would just have to be a way to help out those guys who have been putting in for 20+ years if we transitioned because even though they would get better odds because of this they wouldn't get anything in return for their support of the state through application fees. I might develop a proposal around something like that as well.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
Post by: MAVsled on June 01, 2020, 08:54:36 PM
this will never happen in WA State, with the uncontrolled tribal hunting (POACHING)
Post by: idahohuntr on June 01, 2020, 08:58:21 PM
:yeah:You state as a fact that "General season spike harvest is the main reason branch bull tags are so difficult to draw in this state." That's an opinion, not a fact.It might be you opinion but it is well reasoned.
The fact is that the reason bull and quality tags are so hard to draw is that there are too many hunters applying for an ever-dwindling amount of tags. The resource is being hammered from multiple angles,. OTC spike hunts only being one of those angles.
Your proposals address that one angle, excluding the others. You're making a fatal assumption that a spike not killed by WDFW-licensed hunters could be a branch bull later killed by WDFW-licensed hunters.
Wolves. Cougars. Tribal hunting. Poachers. Hoof rot (it's coming to a herd near you). And more...
It is, therefore, my opinion that your proposals won't work. You take away everybody's ability to go on their annual spike elk camping trip just so the you have a better chance at drawing every half dozen years, and that idea dies in WA. It's like a state income tax.
Only my opinion, of course.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
One reason for general spike hunts can be that often spike survival is very low - I think I've read a few studies showing something like 90% mortality rates...so, as pointed out here, the premise that protecting spikes will equate to noticeable increases in older bulls in subsequent years may not be accurate and would not warrant the restrictions on general season spike harvest.
That said - I would be all for anything, including elimination or reduction of general seasons, if it did indeed increase branched bull hunt opportunities...but I'm not from WA and I hunt other states for elk and consider this states east side public land elk hunting to be an absolute joke - which I think is important context for my opinion, because I'm certainly not sacrificing anything by saying lets end general season elk hunts.
Post by: Buzz2401 on June 01, 2020, 09:09:21 PM
Post by: bobdog86 on June 01, 2020, 11:18:35 PM
Post by: huntnphool on June 01, 2020, 11:53:45 PM
I picked none of the above you want a special draw, no quality, no bull, no cow special categories, just one category,,,any elk. You get two choices. If selected you can shoot any elk. Otherwise, you’d be eligible to hunt spikes. Limit quantities as deemed necessary
And your solution to the point problem would be?
Post by: huntnnw on June 02, 2020, 12:28:11 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 02, 2020, 12:34:40 AM
points need to be eliminated, the demand is far greater than tags available and only getting worse
Agreed, but while eliminating the points, there has to be a acceptable solution for those that have been paying for them all these years.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,214387.msg2854669.html#msg2854669
While this may not be the perfect solution or have all the answers, I think it would be a plan to start from. :twocents:
Post by: grundy53 on June 02, 2020, 05:50:23 AM
points need to be eliminated, the demand is far greater than tags available and only getting worseAgreed
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: Ironhead on June 02, 2020, 06:10:22 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 02, 2020, 07:03:28 AM
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 07:32:02 AM
:yeah: Kinda getting off track. Although point elimination is a good thing :chuckle:
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
I appreciate you weighing in on how you would implement certain proposals. Making elk zones state wide is one of my favorite out of the proposals I came up with, however please read my response about tribes and predators.
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:
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 07:33:29 AM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on June 02, 2020, 08:37:23 AM
Agree with your comments about excess antlerless take, WDFW is terrible about monitoring this tool.
I said take my comments on eastside with a grain of salt. I extrapolate from your comments that you see the large winterkill as the main contributing factor? And that is why we are below target objectives?
I am going to leave target objectives out. That in and of itself is a whole thread. Suffice it to say if objectives are low enough it always looks like herds are meeting or exceeding them. It doesn't mean management is sound.
Predators are NOT controlled. Is that difficult to comprehend? If objectives for lions are high and objectives for elk are low, we have a predator imbalance regardless of what WDFW tells you. It only takes a few excess predators to upset the balance. As for bears, yes I know and am one of several successful bear hunters that kill as many as possible. Again, how about state wide spring season, how about shoot on sight for cats. We have zones for cats like they are ungulates, and quotas to tightly manage them, yet they are known to travel outside those zones all the time. DUMB. Wolves. Don't get me started.
But to the point is if winterkill is the main issue and predators, tribal harvest etc.... are not real contributing factors. Then why change? We should be good to go. Restrict tags for a couple years and let the herds bounce back. Resume business as usual.
I wont bash natives or predators. They are doing what they do. I will bash WDFW, they do not listen to sportsmen, actual eyes and ears and boots in the field. They assume their computer data is more reliable. Both are needed to manage successfully, stop killing mamas for multiple years in a row. Re asses on a consistent basis. Evaluate and give reliable information on Tribal impacts and predation numbers. Be forthcoming about environmental impacts of certain chemicals and don't blow it off. Maybe its conspiracy, but when things change their is a reason, show some effort and action in figuring that out. That is not to much to ask.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 08:51:12 AM
this is so insanely spot on!!! I've been saying this same thing on here for years but people choose to ignore it.:yeah: Kinda getting off track. Although point elimination is a good thing :chuckle:
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
I appreciate you weighing in on how you would implement certain proposals. Making elk zones state wide is one of my favorite out of the proposals I came up with, however please read my response about tribes and predators.
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:
The severe tag cuts in the last few years are completely unjustified. I can't speak to the blues but the 300 series GMU's are doing just fine. WDFW keeps phoning it in on their counts which in turn affects tag allocations. Elk populations may be slightly down but people choose to ignore the fact that we are still living in the golden age of elk in WA state. Just a few short years ago we were hunting RECORD numbers of elk. Since we were so far over herd objectives wdfw went full retard on cow permits for a 3 year cycle and follow that up with the nastiest winter kill we have had since 96 and all of a sudden we are a few thousand animals under objective. We bounced right back but due to a couple of winters where counting was difficult due to lack of weather and wdfw just punts the ball and says bull numbers are way down. Well no they weren't down, they just weren't eating hay at oak creek. If there is no weather to move those bulls they aren't coming down. I was finding bachelor groups of bulls above 4,000ft last winter. One had over 30 bulls in it.
Keep it otc but let's get better and counting animals. We cannot rely on ONLY flying historic wintering areas because that doesn't always work. There's no doubt that a plane is 100% the best tool when conditions are right but if the snow doesn't come and those elk hang in those secondary ridges above the wintering areas where timber makes spotting elk from a plane difficult to impossible....well we need to figure out a better way :twocents:
Don't get me started on mule deer though :chuckle:
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 08:59:45 AM
Villa if that is directed at me, and you thought my comments were meant to get under your skin, your wrong.
Agree with your comments about excess antlerless take, WDFW is terrible about monitoring this tool.
I said take my comments on eastside with a grain of salt. I extrapolate from your comments that you see the large winterkill as the main contributing factor? And that is why we are below target objectives?
I am going to leave target objectives out. That in and of itself is a whole thread. Suffice it to say if objectives are low enough it always looks like herds are meeting or exceeding them. It doesn't mean management is sound.
Predators are NOT controlled. Is that difficult to comprehend? If objectives for lions are high and objectives for elk are low, we have a predator imbalance regardless of what WDFW tells you. It only takes a few excess predators to upset the balance. As for bears, yes I know and am one of several successful bear hunters that kill as many as possible. Again, how about state wide spring season, how about shoot on sight for cats. We have zones for cats like they are ungulates, and quotas to tightly manage them, yet they are known to travel outside those zones all the time. DUMB. Wolves. Don't get me started.
But to the point is if winterkill is the main issue and predators, tribal harvest etc.... are not real contributing factors. Then why change? We should be good to go. Restrict tags for a couple years and let the herds bounce back. Resume business as usual.
I wont bash natives or predators. They are doing what they do. I will bash WDFW, they do not listen to sportsmen, actual eyes and ears and boots in the field. They assume their computer data is more reliable. Both are needed to manage successfully, stop killing mamas for multiple years in a row. Re asses on a consistent basis. Evaluate and give reliable information on Tribal impacts and predation numbers. Be forthcoming about environmental impacts of certain chemicals and don't blow it off. Maybe its conspiracy, but when things change their is a reason, show some effort and action in figuring that out. That is not to much to ask.
Sorry I didn't think you were attacking me at all and I actually appreciated your response Black Velvet. I copy and pasted that response from a thread where everyone was going on and on about natives killing all the elk. I do think that predators and native harvest are contributing factors just like anything that results in elk fatality. As far as objectives go I experienced pretty good elk densities every where I had been in 2014-2017 while hunting the east side. Despite your disagreement with objective numbers they were solid enough to provide OTC elk hunting opportunities. What I meant by the data I attached is all the other factors including predators and natives were present while numbers were actually pretty good to support these opportunities. Then non normal conditions including high cow harvest and rough environmental conditions came along and it tipped the system to where it no longer supports many of the OTC opportunities previously enjoyed.
I would again like for more liberal predator seasons but specifically don't see it as a huge issue as they have never been destructive in my opinion. Wolves will likely change that but bears and cougars along don't destroy ungulate populations.
I would like change because even before diminished herds opportunity was pretty poor. Business as usual sucks. Little to no chance of drawing tags and poor success rates and high competition in the woods. Increasing draw odds is very achievable, again I look to Nevada as a source of inspiration. They have great statistics despite having only 13000 elk total. Their residents get a guarantee at drawing tags, something we don't get especially rifle hunters as this system has aged. And when they draw tags it is a truly "Quality" experience.
I see many of the trends you refer to in the WDFW lack of flexibility to provide residents a voice and influence in management. I wish they would develop better models and be more forthcoming but I don't think they are completely unreachable. I have talked with multiple people from the agency and they would like to see some changes to improve quality of opportunity but get push back from people that feel that OTC hunting is a right. Its possible that the truth is that we might not have enough elk to provide quality OTC opportunity to every resident every year. Many states have come to that conclusion and function well on those models. It's not a crazy idea to make a draw only system and see benefits. Some of the best elk hunting states are draw only and the ones that aren't have much larger elk herds and fewer residents than washington by a long shot. I have done hours of research on this topic and feel that if we could make these changes experiences in Washington would be effected for the better. But I'm one person and this is the reason I am asking these questions.
Sorry for making you feel targeted, not my intention. Thanks for a discussion using logic and not emotion!!
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 09:05:05 AM
this is so insanely spot on!!! I've been saying this same thing on here for years but people choose to ignore it.:yeah: Kinda getting off track. Although point elimination is a good thing :chuckle:
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
I appreciate you weighing in on how you would implement certain proposals. Making elk zones state wide is one of my favorite out of the proposals I came up with, however please read my response about tribes and predators.
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:
The severe tag cuts in the last few years are completely unjustified. I can't speak to the blues but the 300 series GMU's are doing just fine. WDFW keeps phoning it in on their counts which in turn affects tag allocations. Elk populations may be slightly down but people choose to ignore the fact that we are still living in the golden age of elk in WA state. Just a few short years ago we were hunting RECORD numbers of elk. Since we were so far over herd objectives wdfw went full retard on cow permits for a 3 year cycle and follow that up with the nastiest winter kill we have had since 96 and all of a sudden we are a few thousand animals under objective. We bounced right back but due to a couple of winters where counting was difficult due to lack of weather and wdfw just punts the ball and says bull numbers are way down. Well no they weren't down, they just weren't eating hay at oak creek. If there is no weather to move those bulls they aren't coming down. I was finding bachelor groups of bulls above 4,000ft last winter. One had over 30 bulls in it.
Keep it otc but let's get better and counting animals. We cannot rely on ONLY flying historic wintering areas because that doesn't always work. There's no doubt that a plane is 100% the best tool when conditions are right but if the snow doesn't come and those elk hang in those secondary ridges above the wintering areas where timber makes spotting elk from a plane difficult to impossible....well we need to figure out a better way :twocents:
Don't get me started on mule deer though :chuckle:
The Bull to cow ratios are extremely frustrating. I hope you heard the podcast cause I went into this topic more thoroughly basically saying the same things you are. I saw bulls at 5000 ft in march this year. The bull to cow ratios have to be higher for so many reasons.
You should look into Nevadas model more because it will show you what happens when you manage for a draw only system with a similar amount of elk. You may love hunting spikes but I don't particularly love chasing the dumbest elk on the mountain competing with everyone and their mother to kill them.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2020, 09:19:56 AM
Great points villajac. One of the issues with all the complexities that influence wildlife is that its far easier for people to point to the factors they can easily see and give them disproportionate attention. People see big bulls laying dead in a truck being drive by a Native American. People find and see dead elk that were killed and chewed on by predators. What's much harder to see is the effect of invasive weeds, drought, and tough winters reducing forage and nutrition and recruitment into a population. That is much, much less obvious to most and even though it is an overwhelming factor folks can't see it as easily as they can the facebook posts of tribal harvest or a pack of wolves chewing on a 6pt bull. :twocents::yeah: Kinda getting off track. Although point elimination is a good thing :chuckle:
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
I appreciate you weighing in on how you would implement certain proposals. Making elk zones state wide is one of my favorite out of the proposals I came up with, however please read my response about tribes and predators.
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:
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 09:31:16 AM
Great points villajac. One of the issues with all the complexities that influence wildlife is that its far easier for people to point to the factors they can easily see and give them disproportionate attention. People see big bulls laying dead in a truck being drive by a Native American. People find and see dead elk that were killed and chewed on by predators. What's much harder to see is the effect of invasive weeds, drought, and tough winters reducing forage and nutrition and recruitment into a population. That is much, much less obvious to most and even though it is an overwhelming factor folks can't see it as easily as they can the facebook posts of tribal harvest or a pack of wolves chewing on a 6pt bull. :twocents::yeah: Kinda getting off track. Although point elimination is a good thing :chuckle:
I have very little experience on the eastside, so take whatever I say in regards to hunting it with a grain of salt.
Of the options listed I probably lean toward number 3. Gives everyone the chance to hunt where they prefer and spread out pressure, etc. It also includes the westside in the conversation which is important. Things have changed drastically here also. Sure we have OTC branch bull, but be prepared to break out wallet for a private timber pass. Along with new computer, the fastest internet connection, and a prescription of xanax to acquire it. And your not gonna weed through the bulls, the first barely legal branch gets it. But it is an (very slim) opportunity to shoot the big one.
Category elimination is another good option.
My favorite option wasn't on the list. Open eastside to OTC any bull harvest. Their is no end in sight, why are WDFW licensed hunters the ones constantly giving up things? Until real predator killing solutions are presented and the tribal harvest is more tightly controlled, EVERY option is loose tourniquet and not a real solution. I care deeply about the elk herds and the future of hunting in this state, but wake up is needed and we aren't getting it by furthering the restrictions on licensed hunters.
I appreciate you weighing in on how you would implement certain proposals. Making elk zones state wide is one of my favorite out of the proposals I came up with, however please read my response about tribes and predators.
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:
Thanks for the support! I appreciate it. People also like to go after factors that are so much harder to influence. We operate with in the state system as resident hunters and as much as it doesn't seem like the WDFW listens to us, if we can get behind something that we can control there is likely gonna be change. That's how government organizations see change. I'll say it again looking for more opportunity in a system thats already strict and provides little like "getting the same seasons as the natives" is like looting to promote equality. It doesn't make any sense! We can however structure opportunity so that it benefits hunters with potentially not endless opportunity that OTC provides but more "quality management" that draw only states like Nevada/Arizona/New Mexico enjoy. Residents hunt there on regular basis despite local beliefs and if I'm correct have less elk and way more outside pressure from non residents to match our hunter numbers. People act as if draw only is the end of days but I truly think it will make things better and honestly anything is better than the way the system is currently so why not try it out rather than throwing are hands in the air and accepting the bare minimum...
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 09:58:02 AM
Second, you cannot compare WA to a state like MT or NV. I've been out of state hunting for 20 years, usually 4 or 5 states a year. I'm well versed in all states draw systems and management practices. WA has less carrying capacity, less animals, and absurdly more hunters. Those reasons alone should justify a draw only system but until wdfw fix hiw they go about counting animals, setting seasons, and tag allotments, I'm not gonna give them the freedom to implement something like a draw only system.
As for the podcast, no I did not listen. I don't listen to any hunting podcasts, not even the ones that I've been on :chuckle: I'll give it a listen though :tup:
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 10:20:20 AM
Slow down there sparky! I never said I was fine with spike only hunting. All I was saying is that current permit numbers are a joke and need to be dealt with as a first step.
Second, you cannot compare WA to a state like MT or NV. I've been out of state hunting for 20 years, usually 4 or 5 states a year. I'm well versed in all states draw systems and management practices. WA has less carrying capacity, less animals, and absurdly more hunters. Those reasons alone should justify a draw only system but until wdfw fix hiw they go about counting animals, setting seasons, and tag allotments, I'm not gonna give them the freedom to implement something like a draw only system.
As for the podcast, no I did not listen. I don't listen to any hunting podcasts, not even the ones that I've been on :chuckle: I'll give it a listen though :tup:
I don't think montana and washington are comparable at all. But Nevada is highly comparable. Nevada has less elk by ~40,000 than washington. Technically their resident to elk number is higher at 230 residents to 1 elk compared to WA 125 residents/elk. That paired with a nearly identical draw only system on a bonus point draw. I don't know if you get more comparable with any state. As far as giving up more control to the WDFW, I think that is a concern of all of us. I highlight their survey techniques in the podcast and how inaccurate they likely are especially in colockum and yakima. Don't care if you listen or not just think it would help you understand my arguments better. Also not trying to flex like I'm some bigshot for doing a podcast, anyone can do a podcast. I just put a lot of research into this particular discussion and think it may help people understand my point of view better.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 10:34:01 AM
Another thing to consider when rolling tmaround the ideas of increasing branch bull harvest 10 fold is loss of age class and trophy quality which is primarily why we all want to hunt branch bulls in the first place. I can remember pre spike only and a 4yo 5 point was considered a whopper. Now we have some of the best top end bulls in the entire world. We open that up to 3pt or better or similar and that's all gone within 3 seasons.
Like I said before, I think we are mostly on the same page here, I just want to see more wdfw effort because they can't even handle tag allocations as is, let alone large scale. There was a guy on this forum a few years back that was down the same rabbit hole as you. He was a sharp guy and a great thinker. He had very similar conclusions as you and also articulated them well. Keep it up, just don't put the cart in front of the horse :tup:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 10:38:53 AM
Post by: Buckjunkie on June 02, 2020, 11:03:36 AM
Post by: huntnphool on June 02, 2020, 11:09:01 AM
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but weare screwed guys. This is a no win situation. Unless the Boldt decision and the initiatives in the mid 90’s banning hound hunting and trapping can be reversed, there will always be too many big game animals harvested by humans and predators to ever have hunting seasons with good success rates.
Replace Inslee
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 11:11:08 AM
Tried googling you Jacob. You the guy on youtube with the glasses?
I am on youtube and I have glasses so probably :chuckle:
This is me after 8 days in the wilderness
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2020, 11:15:39 AM
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 11:21:31 AM
Post by: carlyoungs on June 02, 2020, 11:24:13 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 11:26:19 AM
It's also near impossible to draw a tag in NV. They have more draw tags because that's all they have. The two states are on vastly different scales.
Another thing to consider when rolling tmaround the ideas of increasing branch bull harvest 10 fold is loss of age class and trophy quality which is primarily why we all want to hunt branch bulls in the first place. I can remember pre spike only and a 4yo 5 point was considered a whopper. Now we have some of the best top end bulls in the entire world. We open that up to 3pt or better or similar and that's all gone within 3 seasons.
Like I said before, I think we are mostly on the same page here, I just want to see more wdfw effort because they can't even handle tag allocations as is, let alone large scale. There was a guy on this forum a few years back that was down the same rabbit hole as you. He was a sharp guy and a great thinker. He had very similar conclusions as you and also articulated them well. Keep it up, just don't put the cart in front of the horse :tup:
You are severely mistaken. Some elk tags in nevada can be drawn on 0 points by a resident. I'll attach draw odds below. For non residents its difficult because they only allocate 10% non-guaranteed. Unless you are applying to some crazy trophy units you can draw a tag in only a handful of points. Also in response to the diminished trophy quality comment. That will only happen in you give out too many tags in the draw. If you only harvest 20-25% of the bull population and stratify that harvest from ages 2.5-10 you will continue to get quality bulls. The only way the age class would diminish is if you over harvested bulls. I've discussed this with a 15 year active wildlife biologist so I wasn't just talking out of turn.
I don't see the WDFW changing their whole outlook on their own any time soon so its up to us to bring up these issues. Resident oversight is something we have to take advantage of not wait for them to offer us. We will see if this just dies and I'm move away and nothing changes but I sure hope that doesn't happen.
Post by: carlyoungs on June 02, 2020, 11:26:49 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2020, 11:27:16 AM
Wasn't he the guy who got called out on here a while back for messing with other peoples trail cams also :dunno::yike: :bdid: :bash:
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 11:29:15 AM
So your Jacob!! Heard a bit about you, your the lucky guy who draws permits every year!! Talked to a buddy of yours last week, Drew,spring bear hunting, no wonder you want draw only, you draw! Lol.
Haha, I wish!! I only have drawn a second deer tag, *censored*ty muzzy buck tag, a muzzy cow tag no one applies for in 181, and a spring bear tag in 2016!!! I'm not in this to draw. I'll likely be out of this state before I ever draw a quality or bull elk tag! That bull is an OTC archery bull
Post by: villajac29 on June 02, 2020, 11:33:51 AM
Wasn't he the guy who got called out on here a while back for messing with other peoples trail cams also :dunno::yike: :bdid: :bash:
Haha, yeah I am. It was a weird situation that is easy to take out of context, I've explained it a bunch. Also no longer a part of *censored*, still friendly with the guys. Will probably record another podcast on this soon.
But here's a summary since you're interested. Met a guy scouting, was super friendly with him. Set cams together, checked his card and reinserted it without moving the cam during season. He was not a fan, blasted me out. I apologized, end of story. Not ashamed of it, just unfortunate how it blew up... If more people get on here to chastise me do it in another thread, I won't respond there either :chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 12:42:38 PM
My point if top end quality was directed at the idea that keeps getting thrown around of otc 3pt or better which would destroy our hard earned elk populations and age structure. Also if you are trying to argue that wdfw wouldn't over prescribe permits I need only to point back to the previous 3 year season cycle where they did exactly that which spear headed the temporary decline in overall populations.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 12:58:37 PM
Post by: deerlick on June 02, 2020, 01:20:57 PM
Post by: Skillet on June 02, 2020, 01:31:58 PM
id rather hunt every year than worry about joe blow podcast needing to kill a big bull once so he can blow up his Instagram.
Per his main argument for taking away the OTC hunts, you can go camping and just learn to be happy with that.
https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,249904.msg3372517/topicseen.html#new (https://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,249904.msg3372517/topicseen.html#new)
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 01:39:29 PM
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
Post by: vandeman17 on June 02, 2020, 01:46:18 PM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.
The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2020, 02:00:13 PM
Post by: Buckhunter24 on June 02, 2020, 02:04:38 PM
Post by: Jonathan_S on June 02, 2020, 02:05:31 PM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.
The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.
Indeed at some point we have to care more about elk than elk hunting.
Post by: vandeman17 on June 02, 2020, 02:06:06 PM
What access is funded by those categories?
Beat me to it. I know the extra categories did help them hire some more wolf experts for an insane amount of money.
Post by: Buckhunter24 on June 02, 2020, 02:07:44 PM
Post by: TriggerMike on June 02, 2020, 02:35:02 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on June 02, 2020, 02:36:53 PM
I like the way Idaho does it. No points and you have to choose between putting in for deer/elk or OIL tags.
but but but, I have been applying for years and I DESERVE to draw a tag... :stirthepot:
Post by: Skillet on June 02, 2020, 03:02:26 PM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
Point taken, Karl. I suppose I am being pretty hard on him. But he's just another guy that comes along with a scheme to improve the odds for him to enjoy his way of hunting at the expense of everybody else's. My main issue is probably more with his barreling on here with biased polls and ideas about what everybody's interpretation of "quality" is than the meat of his argument.
And I've long been a vocal opponent to the "big split" of points and increased categories that happened a while back. I saw the writing on the wall, and quit the points game then and there. OTC for me from there on out.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 02, 2020, 03:09:20 PM
I don't disagree my friend :tup:That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
Point taken, Karl. I suppose I am being pretty hard on him. But he's just another guy that comes along with a scheme to improve the odds for him to enjoy his way of hunting at the expense of everybody else's. My main issue is probably more with his barreling on here with biased polls and ideas about what everybody's interpretation of "quality" is than the meat of his argument.
And I've long been a vocal opponent to the "big split" of points and increased categories that happened a while back. I saw the writing on the wall, and quit the points game then and there. OTC for me from there on out.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 02, 2020, 03:33:17 PM
What access is funded by those categories?Good question! My post was tongue in cheek...more hunting access was a selling point the con-men at WDFW used to push for all these categories. Personally, I think it was something to benefit a few upper management folks who were either con artists with lots of points or truly ignorant/incapable of math and draw odds. Based on conversations I had with some of them at the time I honestly can't rule out the latter. :bash:
Post by: Buckhunter24 on June 02, 2020, 03:36:13 PM
What access is funded by those categories?Good question! My post was tongue in cheek...more hunting access was a selling point the con-men at WDFW used to push for all these categories. Personally, I think it was something to benefit a few upper management folks who were either con artists with lots of points or truly ignorant/incapable of math and draw odds. Based on conversations I had with some of them at the time I honestly can't rule out the latter. :bash:
Lol, I thought that may have been the case with your post :chuckle:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 02, 2020, 03:53:09 PM
lol, actually after 24 years, I kinda feel I do deserve a tag in my home state. Just saying, :peep:I like the way Idaho does it. No points and you have to choose between putting in for deer/elk or OIL tags.
but but but, I have been applying for years and I DESERVE to draw a tag... :stirthepot:
Post by: greenhead_killer on June 02, 2020, 04:11:11 PM
you got a moose tag, that was the consolation prizelol, actually after 24 years, I kinda feel I do deserve a tag in my home state. Just saying, :peep:I like the way Idaho does it. No points and you have to choose between putting in for deer/elk or OIL tags.
but but but, I have been applying for years and I DESERVE to draw a tag... :stirthepot:
Post by: ballpark on June 03, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:28:11 AM
id rather hunt every year than worry about joe blow podcast needing to kill a big bull once so he can blow up his Instagram.
I'm sorry you get that vibe from me man, not my intention ever! Could care less if people see what I kill, and like I said I'm gonna move away from here before I draw a tag in the mean time I'll be hunting the westside. Good luck chasing spikes, you're gonna need it!
Post by: NOCK NOCK on June 03, 2020, 09:30:56 AM
PRESSURE! Herd health and quality are very much effected by pressure....humans, predators, weather.
Only 1 of these do we really have a reasonable chance of changing.
We cant snap our fingers and expect it all to be better tomorrow, it needs to be approached one small step at a time.
NO MORE Multi season permits is the easiest and best way to take the first step. Multis put wayyyyyy to much pressure on the animals
To counteract the loss of revenue for WDFW, a very small increase in tag cost across the board would cover it. or an even smaller step(but not preferred IMO) would be to offer a few multis......with a much higher cost for those who really want the chance to hit all 3 weapons/seasons.
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:43:53 AM
Well now see that's not being very honest Jacob. 13% draw odds for 3 archery tags is what you have in NV for 0 points. Try filtering with a gun, which you state several times in both these threads as the primary user group. Set your filter at 50% draw odds and include all firearms and you get to 5 points before you have a 50/50 chance at a tag and that's only 10 out of 47 units. Take muzzy out of it and it drops to 3 units. Not everyone is an archery guy so I'd call only getting to hunt elk every half decade or so kind of long odds.
My point if top end quality was directed at the idea that keeps getting thrown around of otc 3pt or better which would destroy our hard earned elk populations and age structure. Also if you are trying to argue that wdfw wouldn't over prescribe permits I need only to point back to the previous 3 year season cycle where they did exactly that which spear headed the temporary decline in overall populations.
The point I was making is yes you can draw a tag the first year you apply. I drew a non res mule deer tag with one point at 4% chance of drawing this year. I understand that's very lucky but if I can do that at 1 point residents could do it nearly every year.
Since you asked for the rifle odds here they are. I wish I had Washington prior to 2015 on here because I think people would be suprised. I highlighted odds at 5 points. I'll include washington just cause I want people to know how hard it is. And the fact is they haven't cut early rifle tags really much at all because most years its no more than three unless you are putting in for little naches or certain bigger units. My point is if you have odds growing above 10% and put in every year you will likely draw a tag before you're odds hit 50%. Not guaranteed but very likely. I've done enough data analytics to understand that. Also people have to understand that the success on these tags AVERAGES 45% so the rifle tags with low percentages are hunts where you are likely gonna shoot a 360" or bigger bull without much difficulty. Even the easier to draw units have trophy potential that rivals or surpasses the Blue Mountains. My point is people are drawing in Nevada, its actually like playing the real lottery in washington with real quality hunts usually below 2% odds even with tons of points.
People deserve to be rewarded by the system they fund, and they are not. Spike hunts with low odds is like working at a restaurant and getting paid in other peoples leftovers. But again just my opinion. I'll look up those other stats that you were asking for.
(the info you posted is subscriber only info, you shouldn't post that publicly here)
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:46:05 AM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
Interesting idea, I think that could be effective in clearing out the draws. However, I think focusing applicants in other ways can give hunters more options while accomplishing the task of clearing out the application pools :dunno:
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:50:15 AM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.
The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.
Indeed at some point we have to care more about elk than elk hunting.
I agree, I've been trying to look at it mainly with a biological viewpoint but at the same time increasing opportunity. Removing OTC spike hunts will allow for more accurate harvest based off allocation. If that is the case biologist can more tightly control population swings and statistics that give out hunter opportunity. They do need to improve their survey techniques to more accurately represent bull to cow ratios and other metrics!
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:54:32 AM
That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
Point taken, Karl. I suppose I am being pretty hard on him. But he's just another guy that comes along with a scheme to improve the odds for him to enjoy his way of hunting at the expense of everybody else's. My main issue is probably more with his barreling on here with biased polls and ideas about what everybody's interpretation of "quality" is than the meat of his argument.
And I've long been a vocal opponent to the "big split" of points and increased categories that happened a while back. I saw the writing on the wall, and quit the points game then and there. OTC for me from there on out.
Again Skillet, not in this for my own gain at all. ONE MORE TIME I AM PROBABLY MOVING AWAY IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO!!! Just got frustrated with how opportunity was being created. I don't expect everyone to agree with me about what opportunity is, that's why I started this discussion to see what peoples thoughts were on OTC opportunity. And I can't help the poll being biased, I am trying to gather info for myself so I can put together a more well rounded proposal to the commission and GMAC. I'm sorry you took this discussion as a selfish cause!
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 09:57:33 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 09:58:29 AM
2 threads and not 1 mention of, IMO, the biggest issue.
PRESSURE! Herd health and quality are very much effected by pressure....humans, predators, weather.
Only 1 of these do we really have a reasonable chance of changing.
We cant snap our fingers and expect it all to be better tomorrow, it needs to be approached one small step at a time.
NO MORE Multi season permits is the easiest and best way to take the first step. Multis put wayyyyyy to much pressure on the animals
To counteract the loss of revenue for WDFW, a very small increase in tag cost across the board would cover it. or an even smaller step(but not preferred IMO) would be to offer a few multis......with a much higher cost for those who really want the chance to hit all 3 weapons/seasons.
I've mentioned pressure like 10 times!!! Pressure in the woods is outrageous with an OTC system and guess what when you draw a tag you have to compete with general season hunters in most cases. This paired with short seasons gets an outrageous amount of people chasing animals all over the place throughout the fall. One of my main reasons for offering these ideas.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 10:00:25 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 10:08:29 AM
That wasn't what I asked. I asked what percentage of NV resident elk applicants get to hunt elk every year? Anyone can crunch some numbers on gohunt and then claim you'll probably maybe possibly draw a tag within 5 years. I wanna see overall how many get to hunt annually. Is it 10% of applicants? 20%? The VAST majority of the rich elk hunting culture in WA (something NV doesnt have) will not accept only hunting once every 5-10 years. I've promise I've hunted NV way more times than you and I've yet to talk to a resident that is thrilled with their elk opportunities.
You didn't read my message, I said I would look into it.
But before I do they have 13,000 elk. For an entire state... Its impossible to manage that few elk for a culture that gets to hunt elk every year. I'm pointing out that they do a pretty damn good job with the hand they are dealt. You're right I don't live there but I get to see it from an outsider prospective and it seems a lot better managed than here. Last time I was there I talked with plenty of hunters and most of them were like "The last time my this family member drew this tag the shot a great bull, then when my other family member drew they shot a bull over here" My point is people are drawing tags even with a tiny amount of elk... Cool people get to hunt spikes every year and shoot one every 15 years, awesome that's great while elk are getting over pressure in almost every unit :dunno:
You're missing one big point of this though, moving Yakima, Colockum, and the Blues to completely draw only will not end OTC opportunities. We have another ~35,000 elk that are open to OTC hunts. That won't change. I don't look at hunting as a right, I would forgo hunting deer and elk hunting next year in Washington if they just said we are gonna stop hunting to recover a huge amount of animals and build up some populations. I'm not saying that's a viable biological option to improve animal health but I would do it if meant better opportunity down the road. People are seeing me as selfish for starting this discussion but people don't want to sacrifice what they have in the short run if it means better outcomes in the future... part of this is distrust and I get that but nothing is gonna change if we don't push for it.
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2020, 10:22:57 AM
I really don't think much of this discussion has much to do with biology...its all social...its another quantity v. quality debate. Same discussion that plays out in just about every state, every unit across the west every year. How do you balance opportunity vs. quality (typically defined by older age class animals, fewer hunters)?That's a bit unfair guys. I'm VERY critical about losing hunting rights always and I myself have been a big advocate of moving to draw systems for mule deer. Nothing wrong with having an open dialog about management and the status quo. Where I draw the line is when it is not for the betterment of the herd and habitat.
I think a better route is to widely increase tag allotments from current levels and drop the categories crap. Go back to the old way of drawing tags. Make the individual priorities what they want. Do you want to fill freezers burn your points on antlerless tags. Want a big bull? Drop your cow choices off your app and hold out for a bull tag.
These are my feelings too. If draw only is done solely because it is needed to maintain and hopefully improve herd health and numbers then I can get behind it.
The categories are such a joke and need to be taken away yesterday. I would also be fine going as far as only being able to apply for deer or elk and not both each year. For the species you don't choose to apply in, you can still get ghost point so you don't fall as far behind.
Indeed at some point we have to care more about elk than elk hunting.
I agree, I've been trying to look at it mainly with a biological viewpoint but at the same time increasing opportunity. Removing OTC spike hunts will allow for more accurate harvest based off allocation. If that is the case biologist can more tightly control population swings and statistics that give out hunter opportunity. They do need to improve their survey techniques to more accurately represent bull to cow ratios and other metrics!
Post by: Stein on June 03, 2020, 10:30:23 AM
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 10:53:25 AM
There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.spot on stein.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
My argument from the beginning has been that yak and Colockum are not under objective and the only thing that needs done is more elk permits and a more restrictive permit system. What I take issue with is comparing two polar opposite states like NV and WA. Or using a comment from a MT biologists shock at what we have going on here when MT and WA couldnt be farther apart and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that MT bio doesn't even know where the Colockum is let alone the dynamics of managing it. I'm not even against a draw system but what always drags me into this stuff us not calling a spade a spade.
Jacob you say you don't care if others know what you kill but you slather social media with it. You say you are moving away so don't care what happens here but then go to great lengths to change what the MAJORITY of sportsman want. If you would be a bit more honest people might be more open to your ideas. All of this sets off the ol sniffer a bit :twocents:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 10:56:07 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 11:00:29 AM
A side note here and something I didnt see mentioned (I may have missed it) is draw only in the three eastern wa pmu's is gonna put a MASSIVE influx of pressure on the westside herds. Something for you westside guys to chew on :chuckle:
Thought through this already. WDFW can always cap hunting zones like idaho. Make it first come first serve. Who knows if it would even be a problem but I this is a solution if that is the case...
Post by: Stein on June 03, 2020, 11:02:19 AM
Post by: idahohuntr on June 03, 2020, 11:02:43 AM
There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.Correct...you can't have your cake and eat it too. My point...there is nothing unique at all about WA, the colockum etc. per this discussion...its the same issue that wildlife managers and commissions across the west balance...not that they necessarily try to "balance" equally the two...rather, they have to make decisions on opportunity vs. quality. Its not easy and people will complain no matter where things come down because we all have different goals, values, experiences etc.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 11:07:14 AM
There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.spot on stein.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
My argument from the beginning has been that yak and Colockum are not under objective and the only thing that needs done is more elk permits and a more restrictive permit system. What I take issue with is comparing two polar opposite states like NV and WA. Or using a comment from a MT biologists shock at what we have going on here when MT and WA couldnt be farther apart and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that MT bio doesn't even know where the Colockum is let alone the dynamics of managing it. I'm not even against a draw system but what always drags me into this stuff us not calling a spade a spade.
Jacob you say you don't care if others know what you kill but you slather social media with it. You say you are moving away so don't care what happens here but then go to great lengths to change what the MAJORITY of sportsman want. If you would be a bit more honest people might be more open to your ideas. All of this sets off the ol sniffer a bit :twocents:
I don't post on facebook, and check how much I've posted on Instagram in the past year... Didn't post the bear I took my roommate to get, didn't post the old buck I mentored another hunter during late archery. I'm not a clout chaser. I could care less, I haven't made a youtube video for over a year but I guarantee it wasn't for view cause it only has like 200. You've misjudged me my friend. That may have been a motivation 2 or more years ago but I've matured and hunt for myself and the experiences it brings me. Sorry to come across the way you have taken me, but in the end I know where my motivation comes from and the people I know understand where it comes from too. I'm from west valley but live in spokane, maybe we will cross paths one day either way. Would love to have a discussion. Sounds like you know what you are talking about, I mean that sincerely!
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 11:09:00 AM
There is a near zero chance WDFW is going to do anything that will negatively impact revenue, particularly in the next couple of years but it's been the case for some time now.
District 8 went from 22500 hunters to 16500 in the past 5 years. Business as usual is hurting revenue. I totally get what you're saying which makes this an uphill battle but I'm sure there is a work around.
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 11:11:55 AM
There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.Correct...you can't have your cake and eat it too. My point...there is nothing unique at all about WA, the colockum, or this discussion...its the same issue that wildlife managers and commissions across the west balance...not that they necessarily try to "balance" equally the two...rather, they have to make decisions on opportunity vs. quality. Its not easy and people will complain no matter where things come down because we all have different goals, values, experiences etc.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
Great point. Managing elk has its nuances but in the end its not rocket science. However saying a draw only won't improve biological health is jumping the gun. I think it very much could have biological impacts that increase herd dynamics and metrics while also increasing quality opportunity. Hard to say though
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 11:18:22 AM
fair enough but I'm from Selah born and raised so we try not to associate with you west valley types too much :chuckle:There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.spot on stein.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
My argument from the beginning has been that yak and Colockum are not under objective and the only thing that needs done is more elk permits and a more restrictive permit system. What I take issue with is comparing two polar opposite states like NV and WA. Or using a comment from a MT biologists shock at what we have going on here when MT and WA couldnt be farther apart and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that MT bio doesn't even know where the Colockum is let alone the dynamics of managing it. I'm not even against a draw system but what always drags me into this stuff us not calling a spade a spade.
Jacob you say you don't care if others know what you kill but you slather social media with it. You say you are moving away so don't care what happens here but then go to great lengths to change what the MAJORITY of sportsman want. If you would be a bit more honest people might be more open to your ideas. All of this sets off the ol sniffer a bit :twocents:
I don't post on facebook, and check how much I've posted on Instagram in the past year... Didn't post the bear I took my roommate to get, didn't post the old buck I mentored another hunter during late archery. I'm not a clout chaser. I could care less, I haven't made a youtube video for over a year but I guarantee it wasn't for view cause it only has like 200. You've misjudged me my friend. That may have been a motivation 2 or more years ago but I've matured and hunt for myself and the experiences it brings me. Sorry to come across the way you have taken me, but in the end I know where my motivation comes from and the people I know understand where it comes from too. I'm from west valley but live in spokane, maybe we will cross paths one day either way. Would love to have a discussion. Sounds like you know what you are talking about, I mean that sincerely!
My personal feeling, especially in the 300 gmu's is we need to kill a bunch more elk. Like a bunch more. They have over run our deer habitat and our deer herds are a shell of what they were just a decade ago. Pair that with permit only for mule deer and they may have a chance at a come back. That's a different topic for another day though.
Post by: grundy53 on June 03, 2020, 11:22:31 AM
So to relieve pressure on the Yakima herd you want to add it to the rest of the state. Or cap regions which would make a competition for tags in those other places... to improve the hunting experience...A side note here and something I didnt see mentioned (I may have missed it) is draw only in the three eastern wa pmu's is gonna put a MASSIVE influx of pressure on the westside herds. Something for you westside guys to chew on :chuckle:
Thought through this already. WDFW can always cap hunting zones like idaho. Make it first come first serve. Who knows if it would even be a problem but I this is a solution if that is the case...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 11:23:51 AM
fair enough but I'm from Selah born and raised so we try not to associate with you west valley types too much :chuckle:There is no such thing as a balance, it's all in the eye of the person you are asking. States like MT have tons of OTC and limited true quality permits and people would call that a good balance. Other states have tons of permit only areas with limited or no general tags and people think that is well balanced too.spot on stein.
It's determined by the priorities of the majority and different for each species in many if not most cases.
You can argue OTC tags encourage hunter recruitment. You can also argue a pumpkin patch and low odds of seeing a legal animal discourages hunter recruitment. At the end of the day, there isn't support to reduce or eliminate general seasons in any unit I can think of.
The one place I feel there should be much more dialog is the number and type of special permits and antlerless tags and being intentional about how those impact the herd along with more transparent and realistic herd objectives.
My argument from the beginning has been that yak and Colockum are not under objective and the only thing that needs done is more elk permits and a more restrictive permit system. What I take issue with is comparing two polar opposite states like NV and WA. Or using a comment from a MT biologists shock at what we have going on here when MT and WA couldnt be farther apart and I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that MT bio doesn't even know where the Colockum is let alone the dynamics of managing it. I'm not even against a draw system but what always drags me into this stuff us not calling a spade a spade.
Jacob you say you don't care if others know what you kill but you slather social media with it. You say you are moving away so don't care what happens here but then go to great lengths to change what the MAJORITY of sportsman want. If you would be a bit more honest people might be more open to your ideas. All of this sets off the ol sniffer a bit :twocents:
I don't post on facebook, and check how much I've posted on Instagram in the past year... Didn't post the bear I took my roommate to get, didn't post the old buck I mentored another hunter during late archery. I'm not a clout chaser. I could care less, I haven't made a youtube video for over a year but I guarantee it wasn't for view cause it only has like 200. You've misjudged me my friend. That may have been a motivation 2 or more years ago but I've matured and hunt for myself and the experiences it brings me. Sorry to come across the way you have taken me, but in the end I know where my motivation comes from and the people I know understand where it comes from too. I'm from west valley but live in spokane, maybe we will cross paths one day either way. Would love to have a discussion. Sounds like you know what you are talking about, I mean that sincerely!
My personal feeling, especially in the 300 gmu's is we need to kill a bunch more elk. Like a bunch more. They have over run our deer habitat and our deer herds are a shell of what they were just a decade ago. Pair that with permit only for mule deer and they may have a chance at a come back. That's a different topic for another day though.
Definitely an interesting topic though... You don't think if they were given a chance to recover and more burning was done up high to increase feed the deer could bounce back and elk harvest could be maintained?
Post by: Skillet on June 03, 2020, 11:26:40 AM
So to relieve pressure on the Yakima herd you want to add it to the rest of the state. Or cap regions which would make a competition for tags in those other places... to improve the hunting experience...A side note here and something I didnt see mentioned (I may have missed it) is draw only in the three eastern wa pmu's is gonna put a MASSIVE influx of pressure on the westside herds. Something for you westside guys to chew on :chuckle:
Thought through this already. WDFW can always cap hunting zones like idaho. Make it first come first serve. Who knows if it would even be a problem but I this is a solution if that is the case...
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Is it possible that the Weyerhsuser permits could sell out even faster?
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 11:29:16 AM
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 01:30:57 PM
Definitely more summer range needs to be cleared up but is it too late? The fires we get burn so hot we get sterile ground for a good long while. And then it still comes down to carrying capacity of the winter range. Doesnt matter how good our high country is, if winter brows won't support the numbers because they are being grazed off by thousands of elk then it's a lost battle. The rise in elk populations match up with the drop in deer pretty spot on.
That's a good point, and with hoof rot showing up winter feeding may have diminishing returns if the bacteria spreads in the wet soil of winter... I'm also wondering what that carrying capacity is? Because deer tend to winter a bit higher than elk do and I'm wondering if winter range rehabilitation could increase that carrying capacity so that if the deer were allowed to take a deep breath and escape for a few years if you would actually see a rise in population without changing the elk models.
Don't worry I understand the correlation with the increase in elk at the late 90s and the drop off for deer. However, correlation isn't always causation so was it maybe coincidental that deer took a hit and have never been allowed to recover as the spike only management went into effect...
All I'm saying is it would be interesting to see the outcome...
Post by: Karl Blanchard on June 03, 2020, 01:58:57 PM
Winter of 96 sure didnt help either. To this day I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of carcasses that spring. You couldn't go anywhere without finding death. Game department tried to help a bit in the following years with those late muzzy seasons that were designed to push the elk over into the wenas and out of those winter areas but we shot too many elk so they nuked em. Not sure what the answer is to save our deer but it sure isnt unbridled otc hunting. Only state in north america who has no restrictions on mule deer hunting. Its insanity
Post by: villajac29 on June 03, 2020, 02:07:10 PM
If you look at any historical winter ground for Yakima deer you are gonna find a glob of elk. From mid lake all the way up to rock creek used to be home to hundreds and hundreds of deer. My grandparents lived up chinook pass so I had a front row seat to that areas downturn. Jump across the naches river to cougar canyon, the main rattlesnake drainage and the breaks of the Triton. All historic winter ground for those deer coming out of the Hindu's. All elk now. Other areas such as nasty creek/pine mtn area, lower Reynolds creek is the same. To the north elk have taken over the observatory and manastash. They've pushed the few deer left towards the breaks of the yakima river. They are direct food competitors and they will and do push the deer out.
Winter of 96 sure didnt help either. To this day I've never seen anything like it. Hundreds of carcasses that spring. You couldn't go anywhere without finding death. Game department tried to help a bit in the following years with those late muzzy seasons that were designed to push the elk over into the wenas and out of those winter areas but we shot too many elk so they nuked em. Not sure what the answer is to save our deer but it sure isnt unbridled otc hunting. Only state in north america who has no restrictions on mule deer hunting. Its insanity
I hope someday they make a comeback. Those benches are pretty bucks. Almost wish they were recognized as a sub species but I know genetically that doesn't hold up. Probably some of the worst success rates in the west for deer too. Its abysmal. Interesting subject for sure!