Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 07:19:26 AM
Post by: JakeLand on November 06, 2023, 07:23:43 AM
Post by: Rainier10 on November 06, 2023, 07:28:45 AM
I would also increase enforcement officers. I think poaching makes a huge impact on game numbers. Estimates of poached animals versus legally harvested animals are sickening.
More funding for wildlife fencing and creating safe corridors.
We spend a ton of money on improving salmon habit and making sure they can return to spawn each year but are doing very little to protect migrations routes and winter range for ungulates.
Post by: timberfaller on November 06, 2023, 09:21:22 AM
That would be a good start, IMHO :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on November 06, 2023, 09:27:18 AM
Post by: Bows4huntn on November 06, 2023, 09:37:33 AM
Post by: buckfvr on November 06, 2023, 09:54:53 AM
All complaints reviewed by randomly ricked committee of residents who make recommendations directly to manager who is required to take action determined by selected random committee.
Every region does not share the same management needs.
In other words, turn the tables on the current method of politicized management.
Post by: Rutnbuxnbulls on November 06, 2023, 10:00:44 AM
No doe hunts period. No 2nd deer (which is a doe tag) period. Unless, the unit needs a deer reduction (not likely the case except maybe some islands)
Antler point restrictions on the NE whitetail herd. For a few years there we had some sweet bucks and a lot of them, this was during the 4 pt restrictions.
I would rotate units for OTC mule deer hunts, maybe close some popular unit (ex: Swakane) for a season and let things come around and rotate that theory (If it works) to the next popular unit. Select West/East deer tag just like elk. Plenty of Blacktail for the west siders to go after! ;)
Just some thoughts on improvement, not trying to stir a hornets nest at all. Oh, and more federal incentives for farmers to leave areas fallow or plant native trees/shrubs along drainages in the Palouse to keep deer herds healthy. It'd be nice to see more cover for deer and upland birds. It might also keep water around into the drought seasons, maybe stave off blue tongue die offs.
My 2 :twocents:
Post by: hunter399 on November 06, 2023, 10:52:18 AM
For starters, eliminate multi season tags.Some reduction on the deer side I would agree with.
I hate to totally take opportunity away.
At the same time a reduction may be in order.
When you have to sell leftovers,that may be a red flag that your issue too many.
Like 500 elk
500 deer might be a good round number reduction.
Post by: hunter399 on November 06, 2023, 10:52:47 AM
Public vote by region for regional managers who only answer to a rotating regional resident board of commissioners. Input only accepted by licensed hunters/fishers, no out of region out of state input.Totally agree
All complaints reviewed by randomly ricked committee of residents who make recommendations directly to manager who is required to take action determined by selected random committee.
Every region does not share the same management needs.
In other words, turn the tables on the current method of politicized management.
Post by: hunter399 on November 06, 2023, 10:53:22 AM
Liberal predator seasons, hound hunting in certain GMU's where cat kills are a major issue. Spring bear season special tags re issued. WDFW mandatorily guided by sound science and biologist/woodsman input. We have some of the best research available with game cams and cell phone cams.Totally agree
No doe hunts period. No 2nd deer (which is a doe tag) period. Unless, the unit needs a deer reduction (not likely the case except maybe some islands)
Antler point restrictions on the NE whitetail herd. For a few years there we had some sweet bucks and a lot of them, this was during the 4 pt restrictions.
I would rotate units for OTC mule deer hunts, maybe close some popular unit (ex: Swakane) for a season and let things come around and rotate that theory (If it works) to the next popular unit. Select West/East deer tag just like elk. Plenty of Blacktail for the west siders to go after! ;)
Just some thoughts on improvement, not trying to stir a hornets nest at all. Oh, and more federal incentives for farmers to leave areas fallow or plant native trees/shrubs along drainages in the Palouse to keep deer herds healthy. It'd be nice to see more cover for deer and upland birds. It might also keep water around into the drought seasons, maybe stave off blue tongue die offs.
My 2 :twocents:
Post by: BTobsession on November 06, 2023, 11:08:48 AM
2 point minimum for all blacktail
I like it.
I'd maybe even do 3 point min/ youth any buck.
Post by: 2MANY on November 06, 2023, 11:14:10 AM
There is ZERO accountability in Government anything.
Post by: salmosalar on November 06, 2023, 11:20:48 AM
Increased predator hunting should be a part of all ungulate recovery. Pass a referendum which says that seasons, antler restrictions, and tag allotments must be determined by the boots-on-the-ground biologists and wildlife managers, not the commission. Pass another referendum that the WDFW be guided by the North American Wildlife Conservation Model and force the commission to follow that guide.
I appreciate that you understand that a referendum or similar would be required for these things.
Many people want to bring back hound hunting. Hound hunting was stopped by referendum. It's here to stay unless a different referendum is passed.
The wording of the 2nd referendum would be difficult at best and I would fear that opening that can of worms would be detrimental in the end. Quite simply, I doubt that it could be a communicated in a manor palatable to the majority of the electorate. When you open these things up for change, you do run a risk.
There are ways to do this outside of referendums. However, I believe that it would take either bipartisanship or and working with the tribes to apply pressure on the next governor and state Rep's.
I know little about eastside deer issues. I know that there are plenty of blacktails where I hunt. That is not to say that there is no problem, just that I do not have a grasp on what problems there may be. I don't hunt BT much at all. I see tehm when elk hunting though. There are a lot on my game cameras to. Tghey certainly are nocturnal buggers.
Post by: jackelope on November 06, 2023, 11:46:17 AM
I’d think real hard on going to a permit system for mule deer where people draw every other year or so. Unit to unit could go up or down as far as permit numbers based on deer herd health.
I’d increase predator harvest but that’s not black and white either.
I’d put restrictions on commission members. Background checks or whatever to determine that they are people who would follow the science and not follow their opinion and feelings on things.
Post by: highcountry_hunter on November 06, 2023, 12:02:11 PM
I’d go back to 4 point restrictions in the NE.Does anyone know why they took away the antler restrictions in the NE? I loved it, you’d actually see bucks running around even if they weren’t legal. Now some guy in his pickup with a cigarette hanging out of his lip sets his beer in the cup holder and blasts the first forked horn he sees.
I’d think real hard on going to a permit system for mule deer where people draw every other year or so. Unit to unit could go up or down as far as permit numbers based on deer herd health.
I’d increase predator harvest but that’s not black and white either.
I’d put restrictions on commission members. Background checks or whatever to determine that they are people who would follow the science and not follow their opinion and feelings on things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on November 06, 2023, 12:03:43 PM
On the other hand, I read the comments advocating for some kind of change in the way decision makers are chosen. I would be very careful about taking the power away from the Governor in selecting Commission members. Somebody has to choose and at least now an elected official is that person and there is some bit of accountability. Any change would have to be very carefully thought out or it could end up worse than our present situation.
The one change I would make is to require members of the F&W Commission to have had some kind of fishing and or hunting license for the two years prior to their appointment. In fact, I think rather than members being selected from different parts of the State, they should be chosen based on their representation of a segment of the resource users. Maybe one is a big game hunter, an upland bird hunter, waterfowl hunter, recreational fisherman, commercial fisherman, trapper, small game. Something along those lines. Pipe dream though I imagine.
Post by: boneaddict on November 06, 2023, 12:26:36 PM
Spring bear, remove quota on cats, allow trapping, hound hunting.
Regulate tribal hunting
Stop late hunts for now
Post by: Gentrys on November 06, 2023, 12:41:41 PM
No doe tags.
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 12:42:40 PM
Post by: Jimmy33 on November 06, 2023, 12:50:07 PM
2. Open up wolf hunting
3. Open up hound and bait hunting for bears and cougars again
4. Go to the great state of Idahos draw system
5. Make people buy either a blacktail, mule deer, or whitetail tags
…thats where I would start
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: hunter399 on November 06, 2023, 12:59:56 PM
Hey now,gotta get it right.... First spike I see. :chuckle:I’d go back to 4 point restrictions in the NE.Does anyone know why they took away the antler restrictions in the NE? I loved it, you’d actually see bucks running around even if they weren’t legal. Now some guy in his pickup with a cigarette hanging out of his lip sets his beer in the cup holder and blasts the first forked horn he sees.
I’d think real hard on going to a permit system for mule deer where people draw every other year or so. Unit to unit could go up or down as far as permit numbers based on deer herd health.
I’d increase predator harvest but that’s not black and white either.
I’d put restrictions on commission members. Background checks or whatever to determine that they are people who would follow the science and not follow their opinion and feelings on things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
4pt min was the best years we will ever see.
Not sure exactly on the reason to take it away.
Harvest numbers was up higher than previous.
Everyone you talk to will agree,deer numbers, hunting much better.
We did switch biologist at the time,the old biologist was a reason it even happened. Not sure if our new biologist supported it, doesn't seem like it to me.
Then after it was lifted,next few years they have a lot of antlerless permits,even one year OTC archery, muzzleloader doe tags for there entire season,with a few hundred modern antlerless permits.
Which in my opinion,really did our deer herds in.
I suspect a few hunters complained about the 4pt min , along with some revenue loss,and a biologist that didn't support it.
It went in the toilet.
Anyone that hunted will tell ya, best years we will ever see.
And the highest harvest numbers to boot,of mature bucks.
You can look at harvest rates now,that are very low. Look at the years with 4pt min,which are way higher then now. And all mature bucks harvested,not dink spikes and such.
Post by: GASoline71 on November 06, 2023, 01:06:40 PM
Zero antlerless harvest! Zero. Would be my first step.
Spring bear, remove quota on cats, allow trapping, hound hunting.
Regulate tribal hunting
Stop late hunts for now
I'd put antlerless harvest on a GMU Specific guideline. The GMU I live in is overrun with deer. And that is WITH antlerless harvest during all weapon types general seasons, all weapon types late seasons, and even with about 150 antlerless 2nd deer permits per year.
But for all of your 100, 200 and 300 series GMU's I agree.
Gary
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 01:07:01 PM
Post by: kramman on November 06, 2023, 01:10:22 PM
Choose either Westside or dryside like elk. That would make blacktail and whitetail an otc tag.
Do away with most anterless hunts.
Hire more enforcement officers.
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 01:27:31 PM
Pick the jury like any court case and do away with the predetermined, non fact based decisions we're getting now.
Post by: kentrek on November 06, 2023, 01:38:27 PM
It's not rocket science..and Washington hunters are part of the problem as well.. complain about the hunting one day and then show off the spike or doe they shot the next.. just because the state allows it doesn't mean you need to pull the trigger
Post by: Humptulips on November 06, 2023, 01:40:53 PM
Good Point!Zero antlerless harvest! Zero. Would be my first step.
Spring bear, remove quota on cats, allow trapping, hound hunting.
Regulate tribal hunting
Stop late hunts for now
I'd put antlerless harvest on a GMU Specific guideline. The GMU I live in is overrun with deer. And that is WITH antlerless harvest during all weapon types general seasons, all weapon types late seasons, and even with about 150 antlerless 2nd deer permits per year.
But for all of your 100, 200 and 300 series GMU's I agree.
Gary
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 01:45:06 PM
Post by: Buckjunkie on November 06, 2023, 01:54:53 PM
Before you blast me, think about it. Can it really get any worse than it is?
Post by: boneaddict on November 06, 2023, 02:22:10 PM
Post by: ghosthunter on November 06, 2023, 02:41:24 PM
Zero antlerless harvest! Zero. Would be my first step.
Spring bear, remove quota on cats, allow trapping, hound hunting.
Regulate tribal hunting
Stop late hunts for now
:yeah:
Increase Predator harvest and seasons.
The tribal hunting regulation is never going to happen.
No way do I favor draw only for mule deer. That would kill the camps and family hunting together.
I would restrict all activities in wintering areas until the herds got back Nov to April.
I would make it illegal to use an atv to hunt big game and outlaw trail cameras.
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 03:16:05 PM
I would also like to do away with the apr difference in some units. Mule deer 3 point and whitetail any buck has resulted in a lot of young mule deer bucks being shot and left. Don't really like the late whitetail only hunt for the same reason. Too many see horns and shoot first before assuring species ( not sure some know the difference anyway)
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 06, 2023, 03:33:11 PM
Kinda of in favor of draw permits. Makes targeting specific units easier and also does away with party hunting i.e. buying wife or mom etc a tag so you can shoot an extra animal on their tag. It did kinda spell the demise of the big family hunting camps in states that did it though.
I would also like to do away with the apr difference in some units. Mule deer 3 point and whitetail any buck has resulted in a lot of young mule deer bucks being shot and left. Don't really like the late whitetail only hunt for the same reason. Too many see horns and shoot first before assuring species ( not sure some know the difference anyway)
I used to be in favor of draw only for deer. Now I look at the permit allocation for east side elk and how a branch antlered tag has basically become an oil tag even in areas with good herd #'s, and I realize that deer would undoubtedly go the same direction. Opportunity would quickly be cut down to almost nothing, and the herds still wouldn't recover due to all of the other impacting factors going un-addressed... :twocents:
Post by: buckfvr on November 06, 2023, 03:45:14 PM
Resources are down guys, and unfortunately opportunity has to follow. Multi-season gone, antler point restrictions across the board FOR ADULTS, keep our opportunity to HUNT, restrict the harvest.
Post by: hunter399 on November 06, 2023, 04:32:16 PM
Look at there recommendation for our big game management plan.
You won't find any.
Cell trail cam is one that they recommend banning.
But APR, antlerless harvest,choose side of state for deer,more predator hunting opportunities,things of that nature.
Your not gonna find any recommendations that will dramatically reduce revenue.
Like said I'll bet the bank that they have heard everything we have talked about today. It's slid under the rug ASAP.
Biologist, regional manager,all that will piss your ideas in the wind.
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 04:48:30 PM
Post by: furbearer365 on November 06, 2023, 05:07:43 PM
2. No doe tags, except make a youth tag an "any deer"
3. Open more units for OTC, with less draw. This will spread out the hunters.
4. Open predator hunting at its fullest, meaning hounds for cats and bears
5. Tighten up the season. I hate that we chase animals for a steady 5 months. All seasons should be done by end of Nov
Post by: Buzzsaw461 on November 06, 2023, 05:32:04 PM
Could see em going to a draw system. Make you buy a license first and then of course tag on an application fee. Say $10.00. 50-60,000 total applicants would bring in a fair amount of extra cash at no real costI could see this on the table for sure.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 06, 2023, 06:11:23 PM
For starters, eliminate multi season tags.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: (great minds think alike) (Heard from Chappy the pack out wasn't as easy as it used to be, congrats! gettin old sucks)
Human Predators are controllable, as compared to any real chance we have with animal predators (mostly controlled by voter approve/disapprove)
1. NO Multi season-too much pressure on deer and allows for more harvests
2. Shorter/Earlier seasons, again less pressure. ZERO hunting during breeding times. (Let them grow the herd in peace)
3. Some type of "bonus/incentive" for notching a predator tag (bonus deer/elk points?)
4. Some type of "bonus/incentive" for improving habitat (maintain Swakane sheep fence as an example)
5. Draw only doe permits for all weapons....only where needed. (Not Methow or Entiat as an example)
6. Pick a species for deer, that's all you hunt for
7. Make tribes accountable for overharvesting individuals.
8. Split Fish/Wildlife into 2 separate entities
9. Commish members must have a vested interest in hunting, not just wildlife as a whole.
10. Deer hunters split into 2 groups equally. Only hunt every other year. (I hate to take away opportunity, but its needed in several Muley areas)
I could go on and on but will stop here.
Post by: Bob33 on November 06, 2023, 06:21:11 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 06, 2023, 06:32:18 PM
Post by: Bows4huntn on November 06, 2023, 07:09:05 PM
For starters, eliminate multi season tags.
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: (great minds think alike) (Heard from Chappy the pack out wasn't as easy as it used to be, congrats! gettin old sucks)
You got that right! Asked myself more
Than once why I shot it where I did!
Human Predators are controllable, as compared to any real chance we have with animal predators (mostly controlled by voter approve/disapprove)
1. NO Multi season-too much pressure on deer and allows for more harvests
2. Shorter/Earlier seasons, again less pressure. ZERO hunting during breeding times. (Let them grow the herd in peace)
3. Some type of "bonus/incentive" for notching a predator tag (bonus deer/elk points?)
4. Some type of "bonus/incentive" for improving habitat (maintain Swakane sheep fence as an example)
5. Draw only doe permits for all weapons....only where needed. (Not Methow or Entiat as an example)
6. Pick a species for deer, that's all you hunt for
7. Make tribes accountable for overharvesting individuals.
8. Split Fish/Wildlife into 2 separate entities
9. Commish members must have a vested interest in hunting, not just wildlife as a whole.
10. Deer hunters split into 2 groups equally. Only hunt every other year. (I hate to take away opportunity, but its needed in several Muley areas)
I could go on and on but will stop here.
Post by: HooknoseHunter on November 06, 2023, 07:28:51 PM
I’d go back to 4 point restrictions in the NE.Does anyone know why they took away the antler restrictions in the NE? I loved it, you’d actually see bucks running around even if they weren’t legal. Now some guy in his pickup with a cigarette hanging out of his lip sets his beer in the cup holder and blasts the first forked horn he sees.
I’d think real hard on going to a permit system for mule deer where people draw every other year or so. Unit to unit could go up or down as far as permit numbers based on deer herd health.
I’d increase predator harvest but that’s not black and white either.
I’d put restrictions on commission members. Background checks or whatever to determine that they are people who would follow the science and not follow their opinion and feelings on things.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You’ve been spying on me again while I’m hunting!!! And I quit smoking, it’s just a fat chaw of cope long cut now. Also, I kill way more spikes than fork horns.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 06, 2023, 09:20:45 PM
Another little fact the wdfw could make more public. They estimate there are 3600 mountain lions in the state. Using the most accepted figure, each lion will kill.48 deer per year. That works out to approximately 173,000 deer per year. They also estimate a deer population in the state of about 240000 animals. Hunters harvested roughly 60,000. Math doesn't look good for the deer herds.
That math obviously is wrong. Doesn't account for the 10s of thousands of deer being killed by other predators, Wolves, bears, and coyotes. Then there are the thousands killed by cars. and last but not least, the 10s of thousands killed by hunters. If your numbers were true, every deer in the State would be dead before the year was up and we wouldn't have to worry about them. Your numbers are way off, wherever you got them.
Post by: baldopepper on November 06, 2023, 09:39:03 PM
Go online and check them out. These are the numbers as released by wdfw. I tend to agree they dont seem possible, but its their numbers. Not mine. I simply took their estimated number on mt lion numbers and did the math based on several references as to kill per year per lion. Total deer population numbers are also theirs. Granted, if you take their numbers and combine them with other predator, hunter kills and auto kills there shouldn't be a deer left in the state.Another little fact the wdfw could make more public. They estimate there are 3600 mountain lions in the state. Using the most accepted figure, each lion will kill.48 deer per year. That works out to approximately 173,000 deer per year. They also estimate a deer population in the state of about 240000 animals. Hunters harvested roughly 60,000. Math doesn't look good for the deer herds.
That math obviously is wrong. Doesn't account for the 10s of thousands of deer being killed by other predators, Wolves, bears, and coyotes. Then there are the thousands killed by cars. and last but not least, the 10s of thousands killed by hunters. If your numbers were true, every deer in the State would be dead before the year was up and we wouldn't have to worry about them. Your numbers are way off, wherever you got them.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 07, 2023, 05:29:51 AM
Go online and check them out. These are the numbers as released by wdfw. I tend to agree they dont seem possible, but its their numbers. Not mine. I simply took their estimated number on mt lion numbers and did the math based on several references as to kill per year per lion. Total deer population numbers are also theirs. Granted, if you take their numbers and combine them with other predator, hunter kills and auto kills there shouldn't be a deer left in the state.Another little fact the wdfw could make more public. They estimate there are 3600 mountain lions in the state. Using the most accepted figure, each lion will kill.48 deer per year. That works out to approximately 173,000 deer per year. They also estimate a deer population in the state of about 240000 animals. Hunters harvested roughly 60,000. Math doesn't look good for the deer herds.
That math obviously is wrong. Doesn't account for the 10s of thousands of deer being killed by other predators, Wolves, bears, and coyotes. Then there are the thousands killed by cars. and last but not least, the 10s of thousands killed by hunters. If your numbers were true, every deer in the State would be dead before the year was up and we wouldn't have to worry about them. Your numbers are way off, wherever you got them.
Both great points.
Obviously all numbers are best "guestimates"
Dominant predators kill their own and competing predators in all categories, as well as eat other non ungulate food sources= numbers most likely way too high in both populations, and kills.
Humans and their actions kill way more than just "legal harvest" = numbers way too low.
Which one do we have a better (and realistic) chance of controlling if we TRULY want the ungulates, and hunting to survive?????
Post by: fishngamereaper on November 07, 2023, 06:11:48 AM
For starters East or West tags like elk.
Incentives for predator harvest. (Kill ten coyotes get a bonus point type thing.)
Most everything else has been covered.
Post by: Antlershed on November 07, 2023, 06:29:30 AM
Go online and check them out. These are the numbers as released by wdfw. I tend to agree they dont seem possible, but its their numbers. Not mine. I simply took their estimated number on mt lion numbers and did the math based on several references as to kill per year per lion. Total deer population numbers are also theirs. Granted, if you take their numbers and combine them with other predator, hunter kills and auto kills there shouldn't be a deer left in the state.Another little fact the wdfw could make more public. They estimate there are 3600 mountain lions in the state. Using the most accepted figure, each lion will kill.48 deer per year. That works out to approximately 173,000 deer per year. They also estimate a deer population in the state of about 240000 animals. Hunters harvested roughly 60,000. Math doesn't look good for the deer herds.
That math obviously is wrong. Doesn't account for the 10s of thousands of deer being killed by other predators, Wolves, bears, and coyotes. Then there are the thousands killed by cars. and last but not least, the 10s of thousands killed by hunters. If your numbers were true, every deer in the State would be dead before the year was up and we wouldn't have to worry about them. Your numbers are way off, wherever you got them.
Just over 21k deer killed by hunters in 2022.
Post by: nwwanderer on November 07, 2023, 06:53:49 AM
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on November 07, 2023, 07:28:22 AM
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 07:46:03 AM
I don't think we can simply just regulate ourselves back to healthy populations. Most of us think that way and throw out ideas. The first thing i would do is force bio's to stop managing from their desks and get out and do some counts and interact with the user groups. Then I would figure out who the wolves in sheep clothing are working in management. We have many. I would weed them out and start with non-biased management perspectives. Why do we have an ungulate bio with predator tattoos married to a wolf bio? (Just an observation) NE WA wildlife managers have been in turmoil over the last 5 years (or more). WDFW had to send the regional director to plant himself at the district office. As far as the managing the decline in NE WA, lets start there....
Alot of our counts are done mid-summer is what I was told.
Never understood that ,cause you have surplus animals that time of year.
If they did counts I'm December or January,on public ground .
They could count them on there fingers .
Our biologist,the only good thing I've seen is no antlerless harvest.
After that she won't support any APR for WT,Mule deer in the NE are slowly declining to extinction.
It should be permit only for mule deer in NE WA or 4pt min across the board for WT and MD.
If you look back in 2014 , When we had 4pt min for WT.
You can look at three point harvest and estimate mule deer harvest.
Basically each GMU has less than a hundred mule deer harvested each year. Maybe 101 might have an ok harvest rate for mule deer.
They know MD harvest is almost nothing.They know it's declining.
Yet here we are still buying a tag for it.
When they did the predator/prey study ,they didn't collar MD in our area cause they couldn't find 100 mule deer to collar.
When you have an antlered harvest less than 100 animals.
We shouldn't be hunting mule deer in 117/121/113.
MD population is so low in these units,they should be an endangered species.
We need better management based on individual GMU needs across the whole state.
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on November 07, 2023, 07:56:18 AM
Totally agree. They don't do the counts they historically did. I know the guy that was involved in counts in my area. WDFW does very little counting anymore. Kinda like they do very little population counts/studies on our lakes.I don't think we can simply just regulate ourselves back to healthy populations. Most of us think that way and throw out ideas. The first thing i would do is force bio's to stop managing from their desks and get out and do some counts and interact with the user groups. Then I would figure out who the wolves in sheep clothing are working in management. We have many. I would weed them out and start with non-biased management perspectives. Why do we have an ungulate bio with predator tattoos married to a wolf bio? (Just an observation) NE WA wildlife managers have been in turmoil over the last 5 years (or more). WDFW had to send the regional director to plant himself at the district office. As far as the managing the decline in NE WA, lets start there....
Alot of our counts are done mid-summer is what I was told.
Never understood that ,cause you have surplus animals that time of year.
If they did counts I'm December or January,on public ground .
They could count them on there fingers .
Our biologist,the only good thing I've seen is no antlerless harvest.
After that she won't support any APR for WT,Mule deer in the NE are slowly declining to extinction.
It should be permit only for mule deer in NE WA or 4pt min across the board for WT and MD.
Post by: baldopepper on November 07, 2023, 08:07:57 AM
Several studies on line estimate a bear will kill between 10-20 deer (predominantly fawns) per year. Assuming our bears are terrible hunters and only take 2 per year, the low number estimate would be 50 000 deer killed per year. When you start researching numbers things certainly don't add up very well. By their numbers, there are certainly more deer killed combined than they estimate we have. Kinda makes me wonder how we can make proper management decisions when we have numbers that suggest we have no deer left to manage.
Post by: Taco280AI on November 07, 2023, 08:28:56 AM
Resident and nonresident bear/cougar tags: $5
Bear/cougar bag limits: 10
Use of hounds permitted: yes.
Get the predators under control.
Doe (rifle) tags reduced or eliminated, area dependent. Let them drop fawns. Some archery goes to buck only, unit dependent.
No deer season begins before September 1st. All deer seasons end no later than Dec 15. They're pressured 24/7 by predators and have been chased by people for months, let them focus on winter survival.
Listen to the science and what actual biologists are telling me, adjust as necessary.
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 08:31:42 AM
5-10 year ago ,I would never get a cougar on cam.
This year out of dozen cams , probably about 7/12 have a cat on them. Yes I do plan to setup and hunt a few.
But I went from almost never getting a pic of a cat.
Almost always getting a pic.
Wolves there,cats everywhere else.
Basically wolves have created competition,cats have filled the void everywhere else.
Seems like every track of land has some kind of apex predator.
Then some tracks of land have both.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2023, 08:42:10 AM
Another count I wonder about. Estimate on line says WA has between 25-30000 bearsRight. Cut legal hunting in half and save 10,000 deer. Hardly makes a dent into the deaths from predators.
Several studies on line estimate a bear will kill between 10-20 deer (predominantly fawns) per year. Assuming our bears are terrible hunters and only take 2 per year, the low number estimate would be 50 000 deer killed per year. When you start researching numbers things certainly don't add up very well. By their numbers, there are certainly more deer killed combined than they estimate we have. Kinda makes me wonder how we can make proper management decisions when we have numbers that suggest we have no deer left to manage.
Post by: Mtnwalker on November 07, 2023, 08:44:54 AM
Another count I wonder about. Estimate on line says WA has between 25-30000 bearsRight. Cut legal hunting in half and save 10,000 deer. Hardly makes a dent into the deaths from predators.
Several studies on line estimate a bear will kill between 10-20 deer (predominantly fawns) per year. Assuming our bears are terrible hunters and only take 2 per year, the low number estimate would be 50 000 deer killed per year. When you start researching numbers things certainly don't add up very well. By their numbers, there are certainly more deer killed combined than they estimate we have. Kinda makes me wonder how we can make proper management decisions when we have numbers that suggest we have no deer left to manage.
:yeah: Plus predators aren’t selective on which sex they kill. Lots of baby makers being wiped out
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 08:50:24 AM
Even though cutting hunting by only allowing half the hunters to hunt each year. I mean it wouldn't bother me. I'd prefer to only have half the competition.Another count I wonder about. Estimate on line says WA has between 25-30000 bearsRight. Cut legal hunting in half and save 10,000 deer. Hardly makes a dent into the deaths from predators.
Several studies on line estimate a bear will kill between 10-20 deer (predominantly fawns) per year. Assuming our bears are terrible hunters and only take 2 per year, the low number estimate would be 50 000 deer killed per year. When you start researching numbers things certainly don't add up very well. By their numbers, there are certainly more deer killed combined than they estimate we have. Kinda makes me wonder how we can make proper management decisions when we have numbers that suggest we have no deer left to manage.
WDFW would never do it.
Only getting half the revenue each year is not an option.
The whole state will go permit only .
They can control harvest rates better ,make more revenue that way.
Post by: HUNTIN4SIX on November 07, 2023, 08:50:45 AM
I don't think we can simply just regulate ourselves back to healthy populations. Most of us think that way and throw out ideas. The first thing i would do is force bio's to stop managing from their desks and get out and do some counts and interact with the user groups. Then I would figure out who the wolves in sheep clothing are working in management. We have many. I would weed them out and start with non-biased management perspectives. Why do we have an ungulate bio with predator tattoos married to a wolf bio? (Just an observation) NE WA wildlife managers have been in turmoil over the last 5 years (or more). WDFW had to send the regional director to plant himself at the district office. As far as the managing the decline in NE WA, lets start there....
Alot of our counts are done mid-summer is what I was told.
Never understood that ,cause you have surplus animals that time of year.
If they did counts I'm December or January,on public ground .
They could count them on there fingers .
Our biologist,the only good thing I've seen is no antlerless harvest.
After that she won't support any APR for WT,Mule deer in the NE are slowly declining to extinction.
It should be permit only for mule deer in NE WA or 4pt min across the board for WT and MD.
If you look back in 2014 , When we had 4pt min for WT.
You can look at three point harvest and estimate mule deer harvest.
Basically each GMU has less than a hundred mule deer harvested each year. Maybe 101 might have an ok harvest rate for mule deer.
They know MD harvest is almost nothing.They know it's declining.
Yet here we are still buying a tag for it.
When they did the predator/prey study ,they didn't collar MD in our area cause they couldn't find 100 mule deer to collar.
When you have an antlered harvest less than 100 animals.
We shouldn't be hunting mule deer in 117/121/113.
MD population is so low in these units,they should be an endangered species.
We need better management based on individual GMU needs across the whole state.
Hunted/hiked all over 101 this year and saw 1 MD. It just so happen to be a nice buck, probably should have let it breed, but my 14yr old shot it. The buck was in the rocks at 6500 feet with wolf tracks all around the mountain. This state has so much good habitat to support large populations of MD and Whitetail.
Post by: Humptulips on November 07, 2023, 08:53:14 AM
That seems to be exactly the prescription the anti-hunters are giving us to swallow.
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 09:14:43 AM
Most of the suggestions fall into one of two categories, limit hunter opportunity or do something about predators which everyone seems to agree won't happen.I agree , predator hunting will only get less opportunities.
That seems to be exactly the prescription the anti-hunters are giving us to swallow.
Limited hunter opportunities I believe can be effective,with the right regulations. I believe APR can be an effective tool ,that will allow us to even extend our season,stay OTC tags,keep all hunters in field with traditional seasons or even longer seasons. Exception can be made for youth , disabled,65 over and other user groups such as archery and what not.
When an APR is applied,harvest rates should go down. Which should allow for longer seasons. Which gives us more quality hunts.
Less pumpkin patch. Overall better experience.
Post by: kball4 on November 07, 2023, 09:23:42 AM
Post by: baldopepper on November 07, 2023, 10:22:54 AM
Income: 241 000 (estimated deer population)
Expenditures:
Lions: 120,000 (randomly lowered considering 3600 population
may have non hunting cubs)
Bears; 50000 (using a low 2 kills/yr and low population estimate
of 25000 bears))
Coyotes: 50000 (using a population estimate of 50000 and a conservative
estimate of 1 kill per year)
Wolves: 21000(using a population estimate of 216 and low statistical studies
estimating 10 kills per year
Hunters: 21000 (using wdfw results reporting)
Road Kill : 10,000 (no hard statistic so using what Ifeel.is a conservative number)
Misc: 10000 ( various diseases like blue tongue and other natural causes. Honestly
Just a best guess)
By my figures that's spendimg.about 40000.more than we have as income.seems the only expenditure we wanna change is the hunter expenditure. Obviously no emergency funds for an expenditure like a hard winter or cwd outbreak.
To me. If I were in charge. I'd demand changes that gave me better numbers.
Obviously these numbers can't be correct. But it would appear these are close to the numbers they'd have to use in their decision making.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2023, 11:08:57 AM
Most of the suggestions fall into one of two categories, limit hunter opportunity or do something about predators which everyone seems to agree won't happen.Hunters report kills of 20,000. Using very conservative numbers predators kill 100,000. The solution is to restrict hunting opportunities. So now the 3% of population that hunts declines further. Hunting license revenues drop. Pittman Robertson funds drop. In return 10,000 fewer deer are harvested by hunters.
That seems to be exactly the prescription the anti-hunters are giving us to swallow.
Is that a good solution?
Post by: Pacific Ghost on November 07, 2023, 11:42:36 AM
To help MD and WT we just need to convert everything on the east side to thick stands of reprod, vine maple, devil's club, blackberry and salal. :dunno:
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 11:55:05 AM
I'm gonna say that car collision kills about the same amount of ungulates as predators do.
Just a guess though. :chuckle:
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 07, 2023, 11:58:39 AM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned opening up big private timber land for public use or remove all the tax breaks they receive. Even if it was $10 for a land use permit but you had no time frame to use it and no max permits issued.
Or, land is either open to public hunting, or it isn't open to hunting at all. Radical, I know. Could possibly come with an acreage restriction.
Post by: logola512c on November 07, 2023, 12:03:20 PM
Post by: baldopepper on November 07, 2023, 12:11:50 PM
This topic has a lot of talk about predators killing ungulates.
I'm gonna say that car collision kills about the same amount of ungulates as predators do.
Just a guess though. :chuckle:
[/quote
WSDOT says a.minimum of 5000/yr based upon department clean ups and collision reports Hard to guess an actual amount but I've used an arbitrary doubled figure of 10,000.
Post by: hunter399 on November 07, 2023, 12:19:04 PM
This topic has a lot of talk about predators killing ungulates.Ya that predator/prey study was worthless.
I'm gonna say that car collision kills about the same amount of ungulates as predators do.
Just a guess though. :chuckle:
[/quote
WSDOT says a.minimum of 5000/yr based upon department clean ups and collision reports Hard to guess an actual amount but I've used an arbitrary doubled figure of 10,000.
Biggest fawn mortality was always "unknown"
I believe car collision was next on list.
I was also surprised that stuck in a fence was even a factor of fawn mortality.
Post by: ChefWoodrough on November 07, 2023, 12:25:29 PM
Zero antlerless harvest! Zero. Would be my first step.
Spring bear, remove quota on cats, allow trapping, hound hunting.
Regulate tribal hunting
Stop late hunts for now
^^^
Post by: bigmacc on November 07, 2023, 03:17:23 PM
2–More aggressive predator control/management
3–be honest about predator numbers and their impact on herd numbers then implement numbers 1 and 2 immediately.
Post by: PNWheckle on November 07, 2023, 03:21:52 PM
In a way this keeps the non hunters out of our hair as much as trying to get baiting or hounds back but could increase the likelihood of hunters focusing their time more on predator hunting for the incentive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: PNWheckle on November 07, 2023, 03:24:47 PM
And also rather than being secretive about these high population predator areas, share the info and make it easier on each other to fill our predator tags
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Platensek-po on November 07, 2023, 03:38:30 PM
Make Blacktail 3pt min, except any buck for youth. Or even 2pt min. We obviously don't have the same issues with BT as we are currently seeing with MD and WT, but I do think an APR might be a welcome change.
To help MD and WT we just need to convert everything on the east side to thick stands of reprod, vine maple, devil's club, blackberry and salal. :dunno:
Why an antler point restriction on Bt?? I’m not sure I understand that one. BT numbers are doing great and I’m not sure I understand the need for an APR?
Post by: Pacific Ghost on November 07, 2023, 05:19:54 PM
Make Blacktail 3pt min, except any buck for youth. Or even 2pt min. We obviously don't have the same issues with BT as we are currently seeing with MD and WT, but I do think an APR might be a welcome change.
To help MD and WT we just need to convert everything on the east side to thick stands of reprod, vine maple, devil's club, blackberry and salal. :dunno:
Why an antler point restriction on Bt?? I’m not sure I understand that one. BT numbers are doing great and I’m not sure I understand the need for an APR?
Just a personal preference based on a belief that doing so would lead to a higher concentration of mature deer while still allowing greater opportunity for the younger generation. 75% of the bucks harvested in my home unit are spikes and fork, while 95% are 3 pt or smaller.
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 07, 2023, 05:34:29 PM
Make Blacktail 3pt min, except any buck for youth. Or even 2pt min. We obviously don't have the same issues with BT as we are currently seeing with MD and WT, but I do think an APR might be a welcome change.
To help MD and WT we just need to convert everything on the east side to thick stands of reprod, vine maple, devil's club, blackberry and salal. :dunno:
The Blacktail in the north Puget Sound are taking a beating.🤬
Post by: Platensek-po on November 07, 2023, 05:42:32 PM
Make Blacktail 3pt min, except any buck for youth. Or even 2pt min. We obviously don't have the same issues with BT as we are currently seeing with MD and WT, but I do think an APR might be a welcome change.
To help MD and WT we just need to convert everything on the east side to thick stands of reprod, vine maple, devil's club, blackberry and salal. :dunno:
Why an antler point restriction on Bt?? I’m not sure I understand that one. BT numbers are doing great and I’m not sure I understand the need for an APR?
Just a personal preference based on a belief that doing so would lead to a higher concentration of mature deer while still allowing greater opportunity for the younger generation. 75% of the bucks harvested in my home unit are spikes and fork, while 95% are 3 pt or smaller.
Gotya. I was just curious if there was another reason. I think doing a 3pt restriction might be a bit much. Black tails are already pretty hard to hunt as is. Although I dunno I haven’t actually looked at harvest numbers much either. If I could hunt the evergreen state college woods I could get a giant mature bt every year.🤪
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 07, 2023, 06:41:09 PM
Increase predator bag limits as high as you want, not going to drastically change the amount of cats killed. 90% of hunters never see 1 let alone have the chance to kill multiples.
Bears, Don't kill enough deer yearly to make a big difference.
Wolves best of luck EVER getting to hunt/control that population.
Coyotes, Hasn't been a limit for a long time= Do they have a HUGE effect on deer? IMHO, No.
I'm all for predator reduction,,,,,,,,,Logically its not going to happen as easy as we wish! WE can beotch about it all year long on HW but that does not fix the problem.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 07, 2023, 06:44:12 PM
Most of the suggestions fall into one of two categories, limit hunter opportunity or do something about predators which everyone seems to agree won't happen.Hunters report kills of 20,000. Using very conservative numbers predators kill 100,000. The solution is to restrict hunting opportunities. So now the 3% of population that hunts declines further. Hunting license revenues drop. Pittman Robertson funds drop. In return 10,000 fewer deer are harvested by hunters.
That seems to be exactly the prescription the anti-hunters are giving us to swallow.
Is that a good solution?
How many deer are killed but not reported? How about poached? Tribal kills?
Post by: Humptulips on November 07, 2023, 07:17:01 PM
Point restrictions: What is the point in point restrictions? Do you think does are not getting bred? It is the does that have to be protected. Stuff like this is what the anti-hunters want. Less Opportunity to drive hunter numbers down even more.
Roadkill: It is something completely out of our control and at least around here pretty infrequent. If it was common it would be because we had plenty of deer.
My point before was we are coming up with ideas to reduce hunter opportunity. That is exactly what the antis want. Why help them out?
An observation that tells me where the problem is. Two years ago, I had the Promised Land Permit from Rayonier. This is about 20,000 acres. On the last day of access, I drove through after an early morning snowstorm. I cut 5 fresh separate cougar tracks. Those 5 cougars are going to kill probably about 250 ungulates in a years' time. Hunters are going to take less than 10% of that, probably less than 5%. Can you see where the problem is? It used to be a great place to hunt. It is not anymore. Back in the day it was notable if you saw a cougar track. Solve this problem and you solve the problems with deer hunting.
Post by: Bob33 on November 07, 2023, 07:30:21 PM
My point before was we are coming up with ideas to reduce hunter opportunity. That is exactly what the antis want. Why help them out?Exactly right.
Post by: baldopepper on November 07, 2023, 08:06:43 PM
Several points since my last post.
Point restrictions: What is the point in point restrictions? Do you think does are not getting bred? It is the does that have to be protected. Stuff like this is what the anti-hunters want. Less Opportunity to drive hunter numbers down even more.
Roadkill: It is something completely out of our control and at least around here pretty infrequent. If it was common it would be because we had plenty of deer.
My point before was we are coming up with ideas to reduce hunter opportunity. That is exactly what the antis want. Why help them out?
An observation that tells me where the problem is. Two years ago, I had the Promised Land Permit from Rayonier. This is about 20,000 acres. On the last day of access, I drove through after an early morning snowstorm. I cut 5 fresh separate cougar tracks. Those 5 cougars are going to kill probably about 250 ungulates in a years' time. Hunters are going to take less than 10% of that, probably less than 5%. Can you see where the problem is? It used to be a great place to hunt. It is not anymore. Back in the day it was notable i⁹f you saw a cougar track. Solve this problem and you solve the problems with deer hunting.
What I was kind of subtley pointing out when I used their numbers to point out Deer mortality numbers was what you are alluding to. In reality, hunting is one of the minor contributors to the decline of the deer herds. We can adjust apr rules, juggle season lengths, restrict a few.more units- on and on but in the grand scale their own numbers show that hunting is not a major factor in the herds decline. I think we all.agree there are numerous factors, but like any problem,
we should start with the biggest cause and work our way down. Anyone in a management position who doesn't see that should not be in a management position. To use that position as a bridge for an agenda that is not in the animals best interest is beyond shameful
Post by: Kola16 on November 07, 2023, 09:01:48 PM
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on November 07, 2023, 10:04:09 PM
Coyotes, Hasn't been a limit for a long time= Do they have a HUGE effect on deer? IMHO, No.
Wrong. Studies have shown that coyotes are the biggest killer of deer fawns. In one study....... and there have been quite a few......
"Later, Miller went on to conduct a second study in Southwest Georgia on 2 sections of land. One section of 11,000 acres, 23 coyotes and 3 bobcats were trapped and on another 7,000 acres no trapping was done. The results were staggering. In the trapped area, 2 out of every 3 does had fawns. In contrast, in the un-trapped area only 1 out of 28 does had fawns."
Post by: duckmen1 on November 07, 2023, 11:20:09 PM
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 08, 2023, 05:22:23 AM
Coyotes, Hasn't been a limit for a long time= Do they have a HUGE effect on deer? IMHO, No.
Wrong. Studies have shown that coyotes are the biggest killer of deer fawns. In one study....... and there have been quite a few......
"Later, Miller went on to conduct a second study in Southwest Georgia on 2 sections of land. One section of 11,000 acres, 23 coyotes and 3 bobcats were trapped and on another 7,000 acres no trapping was done. The results were staggering. In the trapped area, 2 out of every 3 does had fawns. In contrast, in the un-trapped area only 1 out of 28 does had fawns."
My Opinion is wrong? it's just an opinion..... opinion's are neither right or wrong.
Sorry, did not script it properly. HUGE meaning HUGE, like 10,s of 1'000's
Anyhoo, the point was we have a slim chance of changing our predator kill numbers.
Post by: NOCK NOCK on November 08, 2023, 05:34:13 AM
My point before was we are coming up with ideas to reduce hunter opportunity. That is exactly what the antis want. Why help them out?Exactly right.
Hunters/hunting are usually blamed for the extinction(or close too it) of griz/wolves/buffalo
Hunter restrictions have played a large part in their recovery, so they(restrictions) can work. IMO
Don't get me wrong, I HATE to see opportunity taken away too,
so Yes, even if we only "save" 10k deer a year, that's a start.
Post by: buckfvr on November 08, 2023, 08:38:17 AM
Several points since my last post.
Point restrictions: What is the point in point restrictions? Do you think does are not getting bred? It is the does that have to be protected. Stuff like this is what the anti-hunters want. Less Opportunity to drive hunter numbers down even more.
Roadkill: It is something completely out of our control and at least around here pretty infrequent. If it was common it would be because we had plenty of deer.
My point before was we are coming up with ideas to reduce hunter opportunity. That is exactly what the antis want. Why help them out?
An observation that tells me where the problem is. Two years ago, I had the Promised Land Permit from Rayonier. This is about 20,000 acres. On the last day of access, I drove through after an early morning snowstorm. I cut 5 fresh separate cougar tracks. Those 5 cougars are going to kill probably about 250 ungulates in a years' time. Hunters are going to take less than 10% of that, probably less than 5%. Can you see where the problem is? It used to be a great place to hunt. It is not anymore. Back in the day it was notable i⁹f you saw a cougar track. Solve this problem and you solve the problems with deer hunting.
What I was kind of subtley pointing out when I used their numbers to point out Deer mortality numbers was what you are alluding to. In reality, hunting is one of the minor contributors to the decline of the deer herds. We can adjust apr rules, juggle season lengths, restrict a few.more units- on and on but in the grand scale their own numbers show that hunting is not a major factor in the herds decline. I think we all.agree there are numerous factors, but like any problem,
we should start with the biggest cause and work our way down. Anyone in a management position who doesn't see that should not be in a management position. To use that position as a bridge for an agenda that is not in the animals best interest is beyond shameful
By far, the easiest way for wdfw to manage is to manage hunters first and foremost. Everything else is mostly left to sort itsself out.
Post by: Humptulips on November 08, 2023, 11:02:55 AM
I reject the notion that we cannot change our predator kill numbers. WE could but there has to be the political will to do so. I'm sorry that I don't have an easy answer to this problem but I think we could start by framing the problem better as a result of poor or no predator management.
Coyotes, Hasn't been a limit for a long time= Do they have a HUGE effect on deer? IMHO, No.
Wrong. Studies have shown that coyotes are the biggest killer of deer fawns. In one study....... and there have been quite a few......
"Later, Miller went on to conduct a second study in Southwest Georgia on 2 sections of land. One section of 11,000 acres, 23 coyotes and 3 bobcats were trapped and on another 7,000 acres no trapping was done. The results were staggering. In the trapped area, 2 out of every 3 does had fawns. In contrast, in the un-trapped area only 1 out of 28 does had fawns."
My Opinion is wrong? it's just an opinion..... opinion's are neither right or wrong.
Sorry, did not script it properly. HUGE meaning HUGE, like 10,s of 1'000's
Anyhoo, the point was we have a slim chance of changing our predator kill numbers.
I think we could start with a better estimate of predator populations and an estimate of how many ungulates, since we are talking deer here it takes to service that predator population. Then an allocation needs to be made for predators, and hunters to decide whether our ungulate population can even supply that number. Is our ungulate population going to increase, decrease or be stable based on those numbers? If there is support for more deer and given the pressures on the population it is not going to increase, more harvest of predators should be supported. Put simply an analyses of the carrying capacity which is usually associated with ungulates but should have equal standing when determining predator harvest.
I really don't see that equation being considered now.
Post by: hunter399 on November 08, 2023, 01:17:09 PM
If predator seasons stays the same as current.
Everyone hunted predators like deer and Elk .
We wouldn't have a predator problem.
The other subject of APR.
I know it's a turn off for most.
The way I see it,you for APR or draw only for the whole state.
Otherwise we just keep declining till hunting is gone all together.
APR we may extend our OTC seasons.
Permit only ,has benefits as well, control over tag limits ect.
We can't allow ungulate population to dip to low, anti-hunters will eat us alive.
My opinion both need to be applied now for certain areas.
Post by: Pacific Ghost on November 08, 2023, 02:16:47 PM
Post by: Stein on November 08, 2023, 02:23:45 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on November 08, 2023, 03:00:17 PM
Also how are you going to retain or recruit more people into hunting when you can’t hunt every year? Are you going to be able to recruit a new generation into hunting by implementing such a policy?
Is improving habitat not a way to increase the size of the pie that were all fighting for a sliver of?
Post by: Barodir393 on November 10, 2023, 12:46:33 PM
Start with getting more animal overpasses and underpasses over larger highways and trains to allow more movement of animals for genetic diversity and hopefully save a thousand animal lives a year.
Introduce a program that if you opened up your land to "Feel free to hunt" (minimum 20 acres) you would get 1 preference point per year you open it. Might increase point creep but should hopefully increase overall opportunity.
One season change:
Open back up spring bear and be aggressive with the permits at the start.
Post by: mcrawfordaf on November 10, 2023, 01:05:42 PM
Start with getting more animal overpasses and underpasses over larger highways and trains to allow more movement of animals for genetic diversity and hopefully save a thousand animal lives a year.
Great idea IMO. THe majority of these that have been implemented are very successful.