Post by: trophyhunt on February 18, 2010, 07:19:18 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2010, 07:21:14 AM
Post by: ICEMAN on February 18, 2010, 07:28:13 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 18, 2010, 07:30:40 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 18, 2010, 07:32:59 AM
You Racist!Your an idiot, what the F is racist about what he said?? When you get a little older and wiser while spending more time in the woods, you'll understand a little more about indian issues.
Post by: ICEMAN on February 18, 2010, 07:34:16 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2010, 07:37:45 AM
I am surprised it's down to only 5 permits. That was always one that a guy could put in for as a 4th choice and have a good chance of drawing it. I guess the indians and hair loss has taken a toll.
Post by: halflife65 on February 18, 2010, 10:52:44 AM
You Racist!Your an idiot, what the F is racist about what he said?? When you get a little older and wiser while spending more time in the woods, you'll understand a little more about indian issues.
That's funny :chuckle:
Alarming about the Alkali, though...
Post by: whacker1 on February 18, 2010, 11:01:32 AM
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2010, 11:17:42 AM
Post by: whacker1 on February 18, 2010, 11:21:49 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 18, 2010, 11:32:22 AM
Blue tounge by the way, generally affects whitetails because of their habitat, not because mulies are immune to it. It is caused by the deer breathing in large numbers of a certain kind of flying knat that live close to water (i.e. riverbottoms, where whiteys generally hang out). The knats clog their airway and they suffocate, dying with their "blue tounges" sometimes hanging out. At least that is how it was explained to me.
Post by: whacker1 on February 18, 2010, 11:40:43 AM
Post by: sako223 on February 18, 2010, 11:47:47 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on February 18, 2010, 11:54:06 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 18, 2010, 11:56:38 AM
I was under the impression that the flies or knats were biting the tongue and the tongue would swell up & turning blue so they couldn't eat or drink, and ultimately starve. But same source - stagnant water source during dry years. often affects the antelope as well as the deer.
That could be, maybe I misunderstood. I thought they suffocated.
Post by: bucksnort on February 18, 2010, 12:12:22 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on February 18, 2010, 12:27:11 PM
Where are you getting the info on the new"quality Hunts". Do they have them on the wdfw web site?go to the wdfw hunting page, see the hunting regulations development box at the top and click on the draft regulation for 2010 and 2011 hunting seasons. After that click on CR-102 below the Game Regulations title. Scroll down to see all the info. Sorry I'm not computer savvy enough to pick the site up for you.
Post by: bobcat on February 18, 2010, 12:31:13 PM
Post by: wackmaster on February 18, 2010, 06:09:27 PM
Post by: boneaddict on February 18, 2010, 07:52:38 PM
The indians.........as far as I know its only legal for them to hunt area 6, NOT the rest of the firing center. 6 is but one area of the whole center.
The fact they decimated it this year with TOO MANY permits might have something to do with it.
As for archery. I'd challenge anyone to try to arrow a buck out there in September.
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 18, 2010, 11:11:34 PM
First of all Blue tongue is caused by a virus, not gnats. The animals get a fever and go to water, where they die and spread teh disease even further in the bad water. Obviously drought years are the worse. The yakima firing center isn't affected much by it becasue most of its water is moving, not stagnant.
The indians.........as far as I know its only legal for them to hunt area 6, NOT the rest of the firing center. 6 is but one area of the whole center.
The fact they decimated it this year with TOO MANY permits might have something to do with it.
As for archery. I'd challenge anyone to try to arrow a buck out there in September.
Good info. Thanx Bone.
Post by: colockumelk on February 19, 2010, 12:35:18 PM
I have been drawn there twice and knew the indian hunting would start to take it's toll but I'm supprised to see the rifle tags drop so low with the archery staying so high? It just doesn't make sense, as far as indians hunting it, just like everywhere else what the f can we do???
It makes perfect sense. The rifle tag is during the rut. It's basically a guaranteed tag. All five of those guys will get their deer. The Archery hunt is in September and it's WIDE OPEN. Out of those 50 tags only 5-10 guys will get their deer.
You see part of how the WDFW bases how many tags they will give out for each hunting method is based off of the success %. If the success % is only 10% then they give out 10X more tags than animals they want killed. If the success % is 50% than they give out 2x the amount of tags than animals they want killed.
Bone is right. It's because they gave out WAY too many permits last year. And yes the Indians have also added to the problems.
Post by: Viszla on February 19, 2010, 01:40:42 PM
Quote
Bone is right. It's because they gave out WAY too many permits last year. And yes the Indians have also added to the problems.
Yeah that.
Seems that there are many other areas with the same problem.
Post by: Romulus on February 19, 2010, 03:16:32 PM
Post by: luvtohnt on February 19, 2010, 03:42:42 PM
BTV infection occurs in both wild and domestic ruminants/camelids from the bite of the vector midge of the genus Culicoides. The Culicoides vector infects most species during mid-summer to early fall when it is most active.
http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/spring/bluetongue.shtml (http://www.addl.purdue.edu/newsletters/2002/spring/bluetongue.shtml)
Another good read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetongue_disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetongue_disease)
Other than that the hair loss has been a problem for some time, but after seeing the drastic increase in tags last year I would assume that is the sole reason for the decreased season this year. There may be something with the quality units having to do with not only timing but the number of permits as to reduce pressure? Just a couple random thoughts.
Brandon
Post by: billythekidrock on February 19, 2010, 04:14:44 PM
You Racist!Your an idiot, what the F is racist about what he said?? When you get a little older and wiser while spending more time in the woods, you'll understand a little more about indian issues.
lol
Jokes on you trophy!
Post by: pat2bear on February 19, 2010, 06:56:26 PM
If the population numbers is the problem they should quit giving out doe permits.:yeah:
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 20, 2010, 08:28:52 AM
If the population numbers is the problem they should quit giving out doe permits.:yeah:
Overall population may not be the problem. It may be the buck-to-doe ratio. :dunno:
Post by: colockumelk on February 24, 2010, 09:12:47 AM
If the population numbers is the problem they should quit giving out doe permits.
Not necessarily. Just like someone said it depends on the buck to doe ratio. One of the things that pisses me off the most about WDFW is this. Every biologist and person who manages game populations knows that the health of a herd does not necessarily mean high numbers. Every responsible wildlife manager knows that you manage for a buck:doe ratio. For instance if you have a buck to doe ratio of 1:15 (like some places in WA) then you have a bunch of does that do not get bred and are a drag on the herd because all they do is eat vital winter feed. The average mature buck will only breed 5-8 does a year. This is why most states try to manage for a buck to doe ratio of 1:5.
Despite this the WDFW seems to manage for overall numbers so they can claim good herd growth. When in reality herds like the Colockum are very unhealthy. Take for instance the mature bull to cow ratio is 3:100. If you add spikes to the mix that number is 5:100. Wildlife Bio's say that the Mature bull (3.5 or older) to cow ratio should be 15:100. So basically the Colockum herd is 5x lower than what it should be. BUT...... the WDFW claims the Colockum herd isn't that bad because the overall numbers are almost where their goal is.
So to end my long rant. When it comes to proper managment the WDFW does a dismall job. Oh BTW yes the Yakima Elk herd does have a bull:cow ratio of 15:100 but the WDFW cheats this number by counting spikes in that number.
Post by: jdb on February 24, 2010, 05:41:14 PM
They did a fly by and only counted 250 deer three years ago there used to be 800 deer some of the problem is hair lossI heard 185 :dunno:
Post by: muleyguy on February 25, 2010, 12:15:37 AM
Quote
Every biologist and person who manages game populations knows that the health of a herd does not necessarily mean high numbers. Every responsible wildlife manager knows that you manage for a buck:doe ratio. For instance if you have a buck to doe ratio of 1:15 (like some places in WA) then you have a bunch of does that do not get bred and are a drag on the herd because all they do is eat vital winter feed. The average mature buck will only breed 5-8 does a year. This is why most states try to manage for a buck to doe ratio of 1:5.
that's just completely wrong; your solution to low buck to doe ratio's is to kill more does??? you don't kill does to get good buck to doe ratio's; you INCREASE BUCK'S to get better buck to doe ratio's.
there is possibly ZERO areas in WA state were the deer herds are above the carrying capacity of the habitat/winter range.
You manage for three things:
1. Most importantly, and very first on the list, you manage the herd to be at carrying capacity of the habitat for the particular management area. If 100 deer can survive a normal winter in an area, then that is what you manage for. You don't manage for the 1 in 15 yr winters; you manage for the normal winter. In many areas of this state, winter range is not even an issue anyway;
2. Once you get the numbers were they need to be, you manage for an appropriate buck to doe ratio; maybe something like 25/100
3. The makeup of the buck population is also very important; studies have shown that fawn survival is greatly enhanced if does are breed by mature bucks; so, you also need to manage the herd so you have a healthy number of mature bucks doing the breeding. This is one of the most overlooked aspect of the management of deer; systemically, all over the West for 3 decades, the porportion of mature bucks in deer populations has steadily gone down hill resulting in many does being bred by immature bucks.
Your analysis would be correct, IF the herd was above the carrying capacity of habitat; BUT, there are few, if any places, in WA state were deer numbers are above the carrying capacity of the unit.
Let me do a little math for you:
Unit XXX has biological carrying capacity for 200 deer
but, in this unit, there are only 110 total deer; 100 does and 10 bucks
according to your theory, to get the buck to doe ratio right, we should cull out 20 does; so you would have 10 bucks and 80 does now.
now, buck to doe ratio looks a lot better, but what have you accomplished??? All you have accomplished is to reduce the number of does in the population that isn't even at the carrying capacity of the habitat anyway.....
Here is my "theory":
Let's not shoot those does and leave them alone and work on building the population up to carrying capacity; lets heavily restrict the harvest of bucks to get the buck to doe population to 25/100; and, lets construct the rules to allow for at least half of those 25 bucks being mature 4.5 yrs or older to escape each year, so the does that are being bred are being bred by "men" instead of 13 yr old boys.......
sounds like you are drinking the Wildlife Management kool aid..........you don't "fix" the buck to doe problem by killing does; you fix it by increasing the buck numbers......here's the bottom line of why you see all this BS about shooting does to improve the buck to doe ratio: because doe tags are popular; because restricting the buck harvest is unpopular; it is as simple as that. It is politically easier to shoot does then it is to raise buck numbers.
our deer populations are under tremendous stress from predators,winter conditions, hunting, vehicles, human encroachment, etc. There are plenty of does being culled naturally from the populations. This is completely evident by the fact that few if any units in this state are at population objectives.
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 07:12:20 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on February 25, 2010, 08:02:17 AM
Another bit of knowledge I never would have learned had it not been for Hunt-WA :tup:
Post by: Romulus on February 25, 2010, 08:30:05 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 25, 2010, 10:37:33 AM
For the record all I DO NOT DRINK THE WDFW COOL-AID!!!!!! FOR CHRISTS SAKES READ SOME OF MY POSTS AND DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!!!
Seriously good post Muley. I'd like to first start by saying that I am a HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE advocate for permit only for East Side Elk. ESPECIALLY IN THE COLOCKUM!!!!!! That GMU is f'cked. I mean for God's sake this herd has had a 70% :yike: drop in their population of branch bulls since 2004. I am also a HUGE HUGE HUGE advocate for deer being permit only in the Yakima and Kittitas area. I mean for God's sake we've had a 50% :yike: drop in our deer herd levels since 2004. What does it take for it to go to permit only??????
However I am also a realist and know that the WDFW would never go to permit only for those two things. And this is because of one reason and one reason only $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
I will admit I am not an expert on deer herds. But I do know one thing from reading reports and also with herd managment, and one thing that you are wrong in. Doe managment is one of the biggest keys with the health of a herd. You have to properly manage your herd for buck to doe ratio. And if you have a ratio that's way out of wack then you must harvest appropriatly. I do agree with you that a huge factor in our poor herd is there is not enough mature bucks. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of bucks die by the time they are 3.5 years old. But this is not the biggest reason why fawn and calf ratios are so low. Coyotes and Bears are the biggest reason. Missourrie and Kansas did a study where they found that 80% of all fawn related deaths were because of coyotes. They don't have bears but we do so add bears to the mix and it gets bad.
Now when it comes to the Colockum elk herd I do consider myself and expert. I've written multiple research papers on that herd and spent countless hours doing my research. That herd right now is deplorable and has been completely mismanaged by our game department. Like I said earlier the branch bull population has dropped 70% :yike: since 2004. Meanwhile the cow population has grown. During this time they have also dropped branch bull tags by 75%and don't even give out cow permits Yet the bull to cow ratio continues to go down. So your notion of not harvesting cows is wrong and has not worked. You are right in that the amount of bulls taken needs to drop. The overall problem with this elk herd is that 80-90% :yike: of it's spikes die every year. So only 10% of its bulls live to grow up every year. This suuper low (3:100) bull to cow ratio is part of the reason why only 1 out of 5 cows carries a calf. This means that 4 out of 5 cows are a drag on the herd. They are wellfare elk that contribute nothing.
This is also the case in the LT Murray. Where it is not uncommon to see 30-50 does in a day but only see 1 or 2 2x2 bucks. Most of those does are wellfare does. So in places like the LT Murray deer or the Colockum elk herd a drastic two prong approach DOES need to be taken. An increase of antlerless harvest and a HUGE decrease in antlered harvest. IE make it a permit only for bucks/bulls and does/cows so you can scientifically control the harvest rates to in 3 years reach a 1:5 buck to doe ratio or a 15:100 bull to cow ratio.
Previously I was not advocating slaughtering all the does. I meant scientifically doing it so that you can cull some wellfare does. Unbred does are NOT HELPING the population at all.
Again I loved your post Muleguy and I look forward to your response.
Post by: whacker1 on February 25, 2010, 12:40:27 PM
It doesn't have to be permit only, but one good year of limited harvest in a general unit would be extremely helpful.
Post by: muleyguy on February 25, 2010, 01:59:35 PM
I think we agree more then we disagree for the most part; but, what I would suggest is that in units such as the LT murray (which I am very familiar with) and the colocklum elk, (which I am not familiar with) is that since the habitat of the unit is not the problem, and can easily carry the amount of animals within it right now, isn't a much better solution simply to drastically restrict the harvest of immature males in the population for a year or two to get the buck to doe (or cow to bull) ratio back to where it belongs??
Then number one mortality cause for bucks and bulls is by far hunter harvest. As whacker indicated, just a one or two year heavy restriction on the harvest of the males in the population would quickly get things back in balance.
I guess I look at this way, the does and cows in the population are precious, they are what do the "heavy lifting" of not only maintaining, but increasing the numbers, in the population so all of us get to keep on hunting these great animals. I agree that you need to have a healthy turnover of does or cows in the population to keep it healthy; but, that is happening naturally through predation and winter kills already on its own.
At most, you would only need to have "welfare does or cows" for 2 yrs to get the buck/bull populations back to where they need to be to properly service the animals. And, the carrying capacity of the habitat in these units is able to withstand vastly higher numbers of elk and deer then are in it currently, so who cares if there are some welfare does or cows or a year or two?? They aren't hurting anything. If you were above population objectives, then I could see your point, but, these herds are nowhere near population objectives.
If you kill the does/cows off in the short run just to improve the buck to doe ratio's, then when you do get the ratio right, you are just that much further behind.
I guess bottom line is this: "welfare" does and cows do not present a problem in areas where the current habitat can support larger numbers of deer then are currently there. So, if the carrying capacity of the habitat is being underutilized, why kill them??? What benefit does it present??
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 02:11:26 PM
Post by: muleyguy on February 25, 2010, 02:28:59 PM
Quote
So I take it your point is that the does/cow are NOT, in fact, "welfare" animals. They are necessary to bring overall numbers back up to where they should be.
yes; how are they welfare animals if there is enough good habitat (feed) in the area they live and winter?? If the refrigerator is full, then you don't need welfare......... Boys don't make babies; girls do.........now, obviously boys are important both in the aspect of the fact there has to be enough of them to "get around" to all the ladies.....and, I firmly believe they need to be "men" and not 13 yr old boys;
but, the department of wildlife has population objectives for each mule deer herd in the state; I do not have the numbers in front of me, but my guess is that very few mule deer herds are at population objectives, and some are woefully behind where they should be. I have a hard time understanding if you are not at population objectives, how a few, unbred does are going to hurt anything???
Let's leave those does in place, get the buck numbers were the need to be, and let boys and girls do what they do best...........when the population gets to objective levels, then you can look at culling excess does.
Post by: whacker1 on February 25, 2010, 02:58:57 PM
Post by: colockumelk on February 25, 2010, 03:34:45 PM
The only other problem that would remain if you restrict a harvest is that you can only control WDFW permitted harvest. Poaching and tribal harvest would be the remaining problems for those years that you severely restrict harvest. It would be a P.R. opportunity for the WDFW to ask the tribes to keep their people out of the "x" unit for the one season to let the herd rebuild. I think it would be great to see the WDFW do that exact thing in one or two units in the state each year. You still allow hunting
Exactly. That was my point last year during the huge Colockum debate. FYI Muleguy last year I was a huge advocate for the WDFW going to permit only for elk since they had seen such a drastic decrease in their bull population. But because the WDFW would lose money and the general population was very against it I lost. I think when you lose 50% of your deer herd or 70% of your bull population than drastic measures need to take place such as PERMIT ONLY WDFW!!!!! But again it's all about the Benjamins.
With the Colockum some cows do need to be culled. They do have feed problems since most of the elk hang around a certain wildlife refuge to escape hunters, Indians and poachers. And they also have to compete with domestic cattle. I think that 3 years of permit only would do the job.
Part of my reasoning for some doe/cow hunts is like everything else decisions like this is political. Most people are not like us and desire quality hunting. Most people just want to go into the woods. So who cares if they don't see a legal animal they just want to be able to go to their same camp spot year after year. So going to permit only would piss about 90% of your hunters off. Giving out doe and cow permits would quell this anger. And again I don't mean vast amounts of doe/cow permits and wiping out the herd.I just mean culling some animals. So that we could do permit only and keep the massess happy.
Post by: luvtohnt on February 25, 2010, 03:51:17 PM
Your being hypocritical Colockumelk, in the colockum you want them to kill cows but in 346 you don't even want hunting opened? What gives?The only other problem that would remain if you restrict a harvest is that you can only control WDFW permitted harvest. Poaching and tribal harvest would be the remaining problems for those years that you severely restrict harvest. It would be a P.R. opportunity for the WDFW to ask the tribes to keep their people out of the "x" unit for the one season to let the herd rebuild. I think it would be great to see the WDFW do that exact thing in one or two units in the state each year. You still allow hunting
Exactly. That was my point last year during the huge Colockum debate. FYI Muleguy last year I was a huge advocate for the WDFW going to permit only for elk since they had seen such a drastic decrease in their bull population. But because the WDFW would lose money and the general population was very against it I lost. I think when you lose 50% of your deer herd or 70% of your bull population than drastic measures need to take place such as PERMIT ONLY WDFW!!!!! But again it's all about the Benjamins.
With the Colockum some cows do need to be culled. They do have feed problems since most of the elk hang around a certain wildlife refuge to escape hunters, Indians and poachers. And they also have to compete with domestic cattle. I think that 3 years of permit only would do the job.
Part of my reasoning for some doe/cow hunts is like everything else decisions like this is political. Most people are not like us and desire quality hunting. Most people just want to go into the woods. So who cares if they don't see a legal animal they just want to be able to go to their same camp spot year after year. So going to permit only would piss about 90% of your hunters off. Giving out doe and cow permits would quell this anger. And again I don't mean vast amounts of doe/cow permits and wiping out the herd.I just mean culling some animals. So that we could do permit only and keep the massess happy.
Brandon
Post by: colockumelk on February 25, 2010, 04:27:23 PM
In GMU 346 they already give out cow permits to the MZ and Rifle guys and allow Archers to harvest cows during the late season. I think currently the WDFW has done a really good job with that GMU. Which is why I don't want them to change anything. Why change it if it's not broke. The Colockum on the other hand is COMPLETELY BROKE!!!!! They also do not allow ANY cow hunting. I have merely suggested that in the Colockum it goes to permit only. So we can scale way back on the bulls being harvested and to allow some antlerless harvest. Nothing wrong with that.
So what is your point again????
Post by: luvtohnt on February 25, 2010, 04:47:04 PM
So what is your point again????
That I haven't read the thread but wanted to give you a hard time!!
Brandon
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 04:47:56 PM
Post by: sako223 on February 25, 2010, 06:03:26 PM
YTC being a different case when compared to the Wenas. With it's approximately 350,000 acres YTC has plenty of habitat to support way more wildlife without even measuring.
Also in my observation YTC does not have a shortage of mature bucks like other GMU's. I also don't think the current 3 point minimum is working especially in open ground where a large rack can be spotted at great distance with the naked eye.
Going to a standard draw permit only would be a disaster and lose hunters quickly. Just like our system now, who would wait for years to get drawn and not be able to hunt in between.
At first thought an odd even system may help, being able to hunt every other year for deer and alternating with elk every other year. No doubt this would put more pressure on predators.
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 07:41:16 PM
Going to a standard draw permit only would be a disaster and lose hunters quickly. Just like our system now, who would wait for years to get drawn and not be able to hunt in between.
Why would it be a disaster? Other states like Oregon have permit only hunting for mule deer. Why would it not work in this state if it works there (and in other states as well.) ???
Post by: sako223 on February 25, 2010, 09:33:39 PM
Deer hunters today may equal half the deer hunters in this state 30 years ago. Adding one more factor to the reasons to restrict hunting could accelerate the decline in numbers.
Other states have permit seasons but I am not sure what "It Works" means. From what I have read about some states draw seasons is that it creates frustration and often drives residents to purchase non resident tags in other states. Essentially sending recreation tax dollars out of state too.
My impression is that is if hunters knew that they could hunt one big game species each year then they will stick with it. participating with friends and family in off years.
If it were strictly permit only for mule deer I would not start in the system.
Also I believe they could bring whitetails into some areas and improve success rates with little impact on others.
Post by: huntnphool on February 25, 2010, 09:39:38 PM
Why would it be a disaster? Other states like Oregon have permit only hunting for mule deer. Why would it not work in this state if it works there (and in other states as well.) ???
It should have sunk in by now that you are in the minority on wanting this type of regulation, how many times are you going to ask this same question? :stirthepot:
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 09:46:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on February 25, 2010, 09:50:44 PM
It should have sunk in by now that you are in the minority on wanting this type of regulation, how many times are you going to ask this same question? :stirthepot:
Of course I'm in the minority. Most people are selfish and only think of what is best for them, not what is best for wildlife. And most people simply want to be able to hunt deer and elk every year with no restrictions. I understand that, and I actually like the freedom it gives us too. But I also would like to actually be able to go out and see good numbers of deer and elk. Some of the hunting seasons we have now are a joke.
Post by: whacker1 on February 26, 2010, 08:25:44 AM
Post by: colockumelk on February 26, 2010, 08:26:56 AM
So what is your point again????
That I haven't read the thread but wanted to give you a hard time!!
Brandon
That's why I love you bro :tup: But only in a platonic way. Not the Romantic one like you want me to. ;)
Post by: muleyguy on March 01, 2010, 11:14:34 AM
It might be possible to leave westside blacktails and eastside whitetails out of the draw system, but, the problem with that is if you do that, then it pushes all the hunters in those directions and puts undue pressure on those herds.
At the end of the day, you have to manage for the health of the herd, or it just slowly disentegrates; you need sustainable numbers, a decent buck to doe ratio, and a decent ratio of mature bucks in the population; if you don't do that, you are going to have problems.
what is going to happen is the Department is going to resist with every bone in its body to go to a draw system because it is very unpopular with hunters and it has a revenue impact on the department; so, what will eventually make the decision will not be people on boards like this arguing about it, or the Department itself; what will happen is the herds will be in such rough shape, the department will have no other choice.
Whether that is 5 yrs from now or 10 yrs from now, I do not know; but, it is inevitable. The wisest choice would be to implement it now, and get ahead of it. But, that will probably not happen.
I think most would be shocked at the very minimal restrictions that would have to be put into place to restore the herds to health; a simple 25% reduction in buck harvests and complete elimination of doe tags for all weapon choices would quickly get things back to healthy conditions. Personally, I would rather be able to hunt 3 out of every 4 years, but, have a good experience those three years, then go all four yrs and have it be an experience like it currently is.
Once you get population objectives back to where they should be, and get the makeup and buck ratio proper again, my guess is the herds would be healthy enough to start layering in additional opportunities and you might only not have get to hunt 1 out of every 6 or 7 years.
Post by: bobcat on March 01, 2010, 11:26:10 AM
As you said, eventually, it is inevitable in this state. There's just no way around it, with the increase in the human population we've had here over the years.
Post by: provider on March 01, 2010, 11:33:59 AM
Post by: HHPro on March 01, 2010, 11:50:37 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 09:20:50 AM
There are those of us who are sick of the pathetic seasons that this state call hunting. We are sick of seeing ouor herds completely depleted and then further pressured through hunting. If I could hunt every year and still have quality hunting then I would love that. But the truth of the matter is that it is irresponsible for our state in some areas to have OTC tags. And in the Yakima and Kittitas GMU's is one example. When you have herds that are depleted such as this WHY WOULDN"T ALL OF YOU WANT it permit only in those areas. Do you not care about the deer? If it did go to permit only you could still hunt just not in Yakima or Kittitas County. Same thing with the Colockum elk herd. FOR GODS SAKES 70% of the branch bull population is GONE. WHY ARENT ALL OF YOU SCREAMING FOR PERMIT ONLY. Is it because you don't care about the animals you hunt. ? It's obvious in the Colockum that a general season doesn't work. But yet most people cried at the WDFW about taking the general season out of the Colockum GMUS's. WHY??? BECAUSE 90% OF PEOPLE ARE SELFISH.
I realize I'm not popular because of my opinions but maybe some of us need to look deep inside about what's really important. What matters most. Is quality hunting and the wellfare of our herds important or us goining out and camping with a gun more important?
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 12:51:28 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 01:20:24 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 03, 2010, 02:34:38 PM
I just get angry and frustrated when I see a problem such as Central Washington Mule Deer which is very legit (ie 50% depletion) and the first thing people say is "But what about me." I just think that that is very selfish. I think our goal in regards to hunting should be to leave our children with better hunting than we have now.
But the way you come across, it all needs to be fixed at the hunters expense, when in reality there are bigger problems that need to be addressed. There already has been a dramtic decrease in hunters numbers and time in the fireld over the last several years and yet the animal numbers continue to decline, maybe its not just the hunters creating this? Why not start with solutions to these other problems first and then if the numbers are still not increasing to your liking, then think about reducing the number of hunters. Problem is you already know the answer to that, the other problems are too political and wont be touched so whats left, try increasing the heards by elimination of the hunters. Isnt that what Gregoir and all the anti's want anyway? Sounds like your falling right in line.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 05:25:21 PM
One of the biggest problems is road access. Yet there again everytime I mention that road access is a huge contributor to poaching of both kinds and creates a lack of escapment to animals. Or how we need to limit some access to give animals a chance. I get blasted about trying to take rights away etc. It all boils down to being selfish and lazy. Even though closing a road down may help stave off poachers and help a herd out I get blasted because God Forbid someone has to get off of their 4wheeler. No it's all about me, me, me. Everyone wants a better hunting season and more animals and better animals and we all complain about what the WDFW does or doesn't do. We complain about the Indians but NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE is willing to take the first step on what needs to be done to create positive change. So instead all three user groups fight each other over scraps, and we fight the WDFW and the Indians. Maybe it's time we come together, suck up our pride and take that first step. I'm not angry at individuals I'm angry at hunters as a whole sometimes. We can be our own worst enemy. Thankyou all who have contributed. I respect everyones opinions. Thankyou.
Post by: huntnphool on March 03, 2010, 05:33:23 PM
Quote
We complain about the Indians but NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE is willing to take the first step on what needs to be done to create positive change.
Pretty bold statement right there, I for one have not been shown what needs to be done so how can I participate?
How about you step and show us, I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one that would "take the first step" if shown the direction. :twocents:
There is also the wolf issue, how do you propose we fix that cluster f@#&?
Post by: sako223 on March 03, 2010, 06:01:36 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 04, 2010, 09:12:13 AM
Now that WDFW is declared whole for another year, we need to get on them like a pit bull and address these issues. We all seem to know season/harvest cuts are coming. Lets try to make it something we can live with.
:tup: :yeah:
Post by: huntnphool on March 04, 2010, 09:14:02 AM
Post by: colockumelk on March 04, 2010, 09:23:12 AM
There is also the wolf issue, how do you propose we fix that cluster f@#&?
What my opinion on that matter is can not be said on here since it could be used to incriminate me. :guns:
Hunt your right it was a pretty bold statement. But like Patton said "Fortuna Favet Fortibus" which is latin for Fortune Favors the Bold. As far as the first step, I would never make that without the support of you all and without having come together and hash out a well thought out plan. After weighing pros and cons. Something like Sako said, "Something we could all live with" because whether we like it or not I do believe like Muleyguy said that change is going to come sooner or later. And the sooner we come together with a plan the better chance we have of guiding the WDFW to something that we can all live with. IE keeping as much rights as possible. This is why I want to talk about this stuff. You all have brought up really good points and ideas. Again thankyou.
Post by: colockumelk on March 10, 2010, 08:04:15 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on March 10, 2010, 08:17:59 AM
I know there are some bigger problems. But before we point fingers we need to look in the mirror first and fix ourselves. And letting hunters hunt a herd that's been decimated by 50-70% doesn't help things it only hurts things. Shouldn't we be more responsible and push for giving the herd a chance instead of being greedy and wanting to kill them all ourselves.
One of the biggest problems is road access. Yet there again everytime I mention that road access is a huge contributor to poaching of both kinds and creates a lack of escapment to animals. Or how we need to limit some access to give animals a chance. I get blasted about trying to take rights away etc. It all boils down to being selfish and lazy. Even though closing a road down may help stave off poachers and help a herd out I get blasted because God Forbid someone has to get off of their 4wheeler. No it's all about me, me, me. Everyone wants a better hunting season and more animals and better animals and we all complain about what the WDFW does or doesn't do.
EXACTLY, it all comes down to selfishness, and laziness. No one wants to alter their way of living to benefit the wild animals. If everyone had a frame of mind that we as hunters need to do what is good for the herds we would be better off. But instead we rely on the WDFW to tell us how they are going to better the herds, and than all we can do is bitch about it.
Brandon
Post by: sako223 on March 10, 2010, 09:33:27 AM
Quote
EXACTLY, it all comes down to selfishness, and laziness. No one wants to alter their way of living to benefit the wild animals. If everyone had a frame of mind that we as hunters need to do what is good for the herds we would be better off. But instead we rely on the WDFW to tell us how they are going to better the herds, and than all we can do is bitch about it.In general this may be correct for some people. Considering I have never had a tag at YTC and there are plenty of roadless areas there, YTC is simply another Trophy Unit failure by the WDFW. With limited access poachers have resorted to boundary access and horses at night. So roads don't kill the deer people do. Predators take their toll. Then we have personal agendas by biologists to deal with, along with other multi agency projects.
Hunters have not and will not agree on anything that is a self imposed cut. Letting WDFW do it gives them someone to blame. Typical learned political attitude.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 10, 2010, 09:41:26 AM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on March 10, 2010, 09:53:10 AM
I saw 75 cyotes out there one morning no joke.
No way THAT'S affecting the doe/fawn ratio.... :bash:
Post by: trophyhunt on March 10, 2010, 12:32:05 PM