Post by: colockumelk on March 02, 2010, 08:22:03 AM
Scroll down to see the stats I came up with if you don't want to read my paper. Oh also notice how the WDFW copied my idea about an A tag and a B tag. I do recommend you read the whole article before and after the stats so you can get a complete picture and idea.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 02, 2010, 08:30:37 AM
Post by: luvtohnt on March 02, 2010, 08:37:08 AM
Brandon
Post by: fishm@n on March 02, 2010, 08:50:21 AM
The unique problem this state has vs. say Colorado or Oregon (both states with fairly large human populations like us) is a relatively low elk population (approx 50,000 vs 250,000 and 150,000) and general seasons across almost all GMU's. If something doesn't change the human and elk populations will continue to diverge. WDFW needs to step up.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 02, 2010, 08:52:15 AM
Quote
The problem is money and how WDFW makes up that huge shortfall in licensing fees
It would be nice if they cared more about elk than they do about the $$$$...
Post by: colockumelk on March 02, 2010, 08:54:07 AM
QuoteThe problem is money and how WDFW makes up that huge shortfall in licensing fees
It would be nice if they cared more about elk than they do about the $$$$...
WDFW-SUX this ones for you :chuckle:
The Everly Brothers - All I have to do is dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fW7MoINvQc#)
Post by: colockumelk on March 02, 2010, 08:58:23 AM
Fish, I agree that to some it's all about camping. But people could still do that deer hunting, they could put in as a group or help their buddy out. My little brother drew a branch bull tag and I was just as excited to be there as he was. Plus In a group of six that puts in for both cows and bulls (two seperate point systems) even if they put in separatly I would bet that 3 or 4 of them would draw each year. Plus for many many years in WA state it was permit only.
Here's another HUGE benefit. In regards to tribal hunting.
"The courts have ruled that state regulation of tribal exercise of off-reservation hunting rights on open and unclaimed land is preempted by the Stevens Treaties, except where state regulation is necessary for conservation purposes. "
This means that they would have to go to permit only as well. Although right now we have to get drawn to hunt branch bulls there is still a general season, so this does not count as conservation. Permit only across the board would count as conservation.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 02, 2010, 08:58:34 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 02, 2010, 09:07:22 AM
Make half the GMU's draw for all elk tags. Leave half the GMU's as is.
That's what Utah did, works great, they have some of the best elk hunting in the world and they also have areas with over the counter tags so people can go hunting/camping every year. :twocents:
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 02, 2010, 09:12:01 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 02, 2010, 09:18:09 AM
FYI - In NE WA they have either sex in most areas, over counter tags, it's just criminal.
Post by: colockumelk on March 02, 2010, 09:20:59 AM
Simple:
Make half the GMU's draw for all elk tags. Leave half the GMU's as is.
That's what Utah did, works great, they have some of the best elk hunting in the world and they also have areas with over the counter tags so people can go hunting/camping every year. :twocents:
You would have to do it by PMU's not GMU's. Also it would take even longer to draw a tag that way. Just like in Utah where it takes a SUPER long time to draw a tag in those GMU's. My way people would still get to hunt more often than not. I'd say on average they'd get drawn every 3 years for a branch tag and every 2-3 years for a cow permit. I'd be willing to bet a months salary that you'd get drawn every other year. Plus bowhunters would have OTC tags just for cow though.
And on that note the reason that Archery guys could hunt EVERY year with OTC tags for antlerless elk is because they have a 4.5% success rate. So if it was "permit only" 90% or more guys would get drawn every year anyways.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 02, 2010, 05:42:47 PM
weapon types in 2008 was 7.0 %. General season
success rates by weapon type were 6.2 % for modern
firearm, 9.1 % for archery, and 6.6 % for
muzzleloader.
Post by: huntnphool on March 02, 2010, 06:06:53 PM
Post by: nw_bowhunter on March 02, 2010, 06:28:05 PM
Post by: high country on March 02, 2010, 06:34:02 PM
just a little possible what if.
Post by: huntnphool on March 02, 2010, 06:45:02 PM
Quote
Why would you want to give up being to hunt yearly simply for more chance at a big rack?
And this is what the "permit only" advocates on this site don't take into consideration. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and by far the majority of hunters in this state are the "hunt every year" type and do their share of "squeaking" to WDFW.
Post by: Sawbuck on March 02, 2010, 06:50:16 PM
I'm not knocking your idea or research.....but personally for me I want to hunt. I'm not a trophy hunter, but wouldn't mind having the opportunity to hunt them on occasion. However I'm not willing to give up general season and run the risk of not being able to hunt at all depending how successful I was for drawing. This type of discussion happens a lot on the forum and not sure why so many people want permit only hunting other than for the sake of having more trophy potential. Why would you want to give up being to hunt yearly simply for more chance at a big rack? If that is the case head out of state hunt where there is more trophy opportunity.Well said. I pack in every year to the same spot away from the crowds and enjoy hunting spikes. I see big bulls, take pictures and wait my turn to be drawn. Out of the five in our group, somebody gets drawn for an any bull tag about every other year, and we usually bring home at least one spike. Pretty good odds, good enough anyway. I think there are many ways to improve our elk herd management but going permit only might not be the best.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 02, 2010, 07:11:32 PM
Post by: ridgefire on March 02, 2010, 07:21:13 PM
Post by: funkster on March 02, 2010, 07:25:09 PM
This means you would get drawn to hunt branch bulls 3-4 times more often than now.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85)
That is great since I have never drawn! I am assuming this would also mean not choosing a side before the draws are completed? That also would be nice.
Post by: HHPro on March 02, 2010, 07:26:18 PM
i am not a trophy hunter but i would be all for making the eastside a draw i think it would improve the hunting for all of us:yeah:
Post by: norsepeak on March 02, 2010, 10:57:09 PM
Post by: teal101 on March 03, 2010, 08:18:12 AM
Shut it down and make it permit only. Less people, more game, bigger game, NO INDIANS!!!
Post by: funkster on March 03, 2010, 08:37:16 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 08:48:48 AM
For those saying permit only hunting would be only to increase the number of "trophies," no that isn't true at all. It would increase the number of animals overall and decrease the number of hunters in the woods at one time. Some units may be able to handle the same number of people that currently hunt it, so therefore they could issue that number of permits for that unit. Other units may be better off with a 50% cut in hunters. Reduce permits accordingly.
The point is it would allow the WDFW to correctly manage elk numbers per GMU instead of the way it is now where there is basically NO management whatsoever.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
huntphool yes I know damn well that the biggest voice are the guys who just want the chance to hunt. I realize that the quality hunting dreamers such as myself are in the minority. I have also taken into account about the Indians.
Article 3 of the treaty says. The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with the citizens of the territory…together with the privilege of hunting, Now also in the BOLDT decision it also says (and this is why the Indians would lose their 24/7 elk hunting rights if it went to permit only)
The courts have created a narrow exception to the general rule that state regulation of tribal treaty hunters is preempted by the treaties. This exception applies in situations where the state is regulating the fishing or hunting of a particular species in order to conserve that species.
If it went to permit only then that is "in order to conserve that species." Although in order for us to hunt cows or bulls we MUST get drawn; there is still a general season. If it goes to permit only that is telling the state that we are doing that to preserve and conserve the species of elk. The Indians would still have hunting rights but they would now have to get drawn to hunt them much like they must get drawn to hunt sheep or goats.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 09:27:40 AM
I agree with what NW_Hunter said. I am fine hunting spikes and cows until I draw a big bull tag every 3-5 years. Another thing, so you are against them having a general season in the Little Naches. Don't you think it is kind of contradicting yourself by doubling the tags for Peaches Ridge, most guys are going to hunt the Little Naches over the Taneum, thus creating more "crowds" as you put in your letter in that specific GMU.
This doesn't even deserve a response. If you can't see that a general season in the Little Naches would have far more people in it that my "proposed permit only system" then you havn't done your research properly.
SAWBUCK: I'm not a trophy hunter by any means. I just want quality hunting. I'd rather hunt 2-3 out of 4 years with quality hunting then every year with our current horrid hunting. Quality hunting to me is being able to see animals that I can harvest. I don't see many spikes and the spikes I have seen get chased away by bigger bulls. I also hike way into the high country to get away from the crowds. I'm just sick of paying a bunch of money to the WDFW without getting any return on my investment. I want more bang for my buck.
Post by: Wile E. Hunter on March 03, 2010, 09:32:03 AM
High Country I don't think very many people connect with predators while out hunting. At least I've never seen a camp with a predator in it. I'd be willing to bet that 90% of predators taken are by the hard corps guys that predator hunt during the off season. I personally know guys that smoke 50-70 yotes a year.
:yeah: That'd be me!
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 09:34:21 AM
Scroll down to Muleyguy's post. He said it very very well. About what's going to happen to our hunting here whether we like it or not.
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,45066.45.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,45066.45.html)
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 09:35:03 AM
Post by: woodswalker on March 03, 2010, 09:45:49 AM
i am not a trophy hunter but i would be all for making the eastside a draw i think it would improve the hunting for all of us
NO hunting is NOT improved hunting...its half a perfectly good reason to get away from work and such for a week or so...I am OK with not getting too many spikes...and saving my points until I know i will have time to really pursue a big bull
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 03, 2010, 10:05:04 AM
i am not a trophy hunter but i would be all for making the eastside a draw i think it would improve the hunting for all of us
NO hunting is NOT improved hunting...its half a perfectly good reason to get away from work and such for a week or so...I am OK with not getting too many spikes...and saving my points until I know i will have time to really pursue a big bull
I agree!!!!!
Post by: Sneaky on March 03, 2010, 10:07:16 AM
In regards to highcountry's comment about less predators being killed if there are less elk hunters out, I think the opposite could be true. If I was not able to hunt elk one particular season, I would be more likely to spend my time focusing on bears, cougars, and coyotes. Just think if the state reduced elk hunters by half each year, and if even 10% of those that didn't hunt elk that year, instead went out and hunted predators...
I think one of the major problems we face as hunters in this state is that some hunters are more concerned with harvesting a resource than being a steward of that resource. I feel as hunters it is our responsibility to also act as conservationists. In doing so, we should not solely focus on harvesting an animal, but also on making provisions to ensure that there is wildlife available for future generations. For example, feel there is a need for less regulation on predator hunting, as well as more participation among hunters in the "off-season" as well as during the season. I feel if we were able to hunt bears over bait and hunt cougars with hounds, participation would go up, and more predators could be harvested. I also feel that by using bait and hounds, hunters can make better judgment as to which animals to harvest and which to let pass (sows, cougars with kittens, etc.). I feel it is our responsibility as hunters to make an effort to conserve through predator reduction. Deer and Elk are already limited by the encroachment of society, and they could benefit from a reduction of predation stress.
In addition to predator management, I feel we could improve by making an attempt at lessening the amount of pollution left in the areas that we utilize for hunting and fishing. I know that most of the time it isn't hunters that dump junk cars, trash, and scraps in national forest and open logging land, but I feel the only solution to the issue is be the bigger person and maybe pick up some beer bottles on the way out of the woods and throw them away when we get home. If everyone picked up just a little bit, we would not only be improving the habitat for the animals, but for ourselves and future hunters. Yes, I know I'm probably dreaming but the fact is that arguing about policy doesn't change anything. Being active, civil, and acting as a steward of the land is the only way to improve our resources.
Being a rifle hunter, I have hunted elk in the Colockum and Yakima areas exactly once each due to some of the appalling "hunting" practices I observed. I am aware that it is only a small percentage that conduct themselves in this manner, but they just plain ruined the experience for me. Where have the ethics gone? Yes, we all know the game laws make it tough to harvest an animal in Washington, but to me, that's part of the trophy. At the end of the day, If harvest an animal the right way, having followed the rules and not cut any legal corners, that makes the dink whitetail I shot in '08 that much nicer. It definitely made the tag soup I ate after 45+ days in the woods this year taste better.
Permit only elk hunting in the 300 series GMU's could be a piece of the management puzzle, but I feel in the end, hunters in this state need to start acting as stewards of the land again before any real change can be realized.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 01:07:47 PM
One reason I get upset is because Despite the fact that in the Colockum in the past 6 years 70% of the branch bulls have been killed off and every year 75-85% of yearling bulls are killed. This is a herd that has been completely decimated. Yet when someone mentions that it needs to be permit only to rebuild it and figure out a better way for it to be managed. Most people :'( and complain about THEIR hunting rights and how it will ruin their season etc. HOW SELFISH!!!!! That's what angers me. What numbers will it take for people to wake up and not be so selfish??? 80%, 90%???? I get mad because people are so selfish and only care about themselves. What happened to making sure and striving towards giving our kids better hunting than we have? Instead people care more about the chance to sit around and drink whiskey than the animals they hunt.
I posted this to get ideas flowing and a good topic for debate and discussion. So even if I don't agree with you I want to say thank you everyone who has contributed. This is how things start to change for the better. :brew:
Post by: hughjorgan on March 03, 2010, 01:22:29 PM
Hugh I got 4.5% because thats what the average success rate on eastside archery is on average. Since the discussion is the east side why the hell would I include stats for the west side??
[/color]
So, did you do some calculations yourself to get 4.5% or did you find this number on WDFW website? All the numbers I have come across incorporate all of archery success for elk in the general season and it is much higher than what you state.
Post by: hughjorgan on March 03, 2010, 01:32:16 PM
I agree with what NW_Hunter said. I am fine hunting spikes and cows until I draw a big bull tag every 3-5 years. Another thing, so you are against them having a general season in the Little Naches. Don't you think it is kind of contradicting yourself by doubling the tags for Peaches Ridge, most guys are going to hunt the Little Naches over the Taneum, thus creating more "crowds" as you put in your letter in that specific GMU.
This doesn't even deserve a response. If you can't see that a general season in the Little Naches would have far more people in it that my "proposed permit only system" then you havn't done your research properly.
There is a possibility that more people would hunt a general season in the little naches though that means there is going to be less people in other area GMU's, but doubling the permits under your proposed scheme would increase the so called crowds as well. Personally, I think a lot of people are going over board on the whole proposal for the switch. I average seeing one other person while hunting the early season every year. It isn't going to ruin that hunt and I bet the same people that are crying about it are still going to be putting in for that tag every year and people will still be successful and get big bulls in there even if there is a general season.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 02:07:21 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on March 03, 2010, 02:40:24 PM
Colockum, so what do you propose would happen to late season for archery elk, is this hunt to just be eliminated or would you propose permits during this period of time also. And if the eastside went to permit only, how would this be good for recruiting new people into hunting being that you would take hunters ed then not be able to hunt. How would you get people interested in the sport, it seems it would be a lot harder to get people involved with a system like you propose.
Post by: Deep Forks on March 03, 2010, 03:26:00 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bobcat, colockumelk, hhpro, muleyguy, you are on the right track, but problem with lower numbers is also happening in Chelan Co. as well. I don't need to have a deer or elk tag in my hand every year, I can still hunt, just not with a gun. My son, friends, and relatives all agree one of us would be lucky enough to receive a tag and then the hunt is on, we'll be in the mountains, glassing, spotting, observing and eating great camp food, just not pulling the trigger on deer or elk. I can live with this to experience a hunt more like it was before the herds were cut in half.
The mission unit which borders the colockum, has an area that us oldtimers visited every spring to check a portion of the mission herd. This herd would gather every spring to calve, feed and spend there time in some meadows, aspen and timber every year since I remember (50 yr.). When I was a kid it was common to see 300 head on any given evening, and as time past the herd would split and move off into different areas but their was always elk in and around the big meadow right up to winter. When my son was young his grandpa would take him to see this herd, still at least 200 strong. Well now I take my grandsons up there and this last year we hit the jackpot one evening, 27 elk, 3 years ago the most we seen was 18. Our friends at WDFW are still allowing a month long cow season in this area, to control orchard damage, horse pelosi.
20 years ago it wasn't uncommon to have a couple big bulls and half dozen spikes
shot opening weekend. The past 5 years I know of 2 spikes taken out of this area. So in my humble opinion something has to be done or my grandkids won't
get to experience a quality hunt in our state
Post by: LG on March 03, 2010, 04:11:14 PM
Post by: sako223 on March 03, 2010, 04:18:04 PM
I am opposed to going with an all draw system because just like our current draw system you could end up going for years without a tag let alone success.
Odd/Even alternating system by the last number of your Wild ID looks better to me.
Example:
2010 Deer/Odd Elk/Even
2011 Deer/Even Elk/Odd
This is only for General season. This would cut the number of hunters in half but everyone would still get to hunt each year for something to keep traditions and interest. We could still have the current draw system so no one would lose points, and those harvest numbers could be adjusted like they are this year to nearly half for cow elk.
Studies have shown that with a reduction in permit hunters there is an increase in predator hunting.
Changes in hunter numbers or shifting to another unit will affect success rates.
Many people don't know how to hunt anyway, they have just learned how to capitalize on pressure or cheating. With reduced hunter numbers in the field some guys will claim there is less game in the field but really just need to learn how to find them.
Post by: colockumelk on March 03, 2010, 05:17:00 PM
What I did was I did one GMU at a time. I looked at the antlerless success rate in the Archery season (included both early/late season) for the previous four years. I then took the average %. I did this with each GMU and made an average of each GMU. That's how I came up with 4.78% Archery Antlerless success rate.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/index.html (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/index.html)
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/specperm/elk.htm (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/hunter/specperm/elk.htm)
Sako I would be 100% for your idea. If that worked then that would be great. I still believe though that for some Mule Deer herds and the Colockum Elk herd permit only needs to be implemented ASAP. With your plan you'd still have to wait forever to be able to hunt branch bulls. As it is now it takes on average 6-8 years to draw a branch bull permit, and 2-4 years to draw a cow permit. Now think about this, if under a permit only system you would get 3.41 times more branch permits this means you would get drawn 3.41 times more often. So take 6-10 and divide by 3.41 and thats how often you'd get a branch bull permit. So on top of that you get drawn every 2-4 years for cows. I'd bet you a months pay you'd still get to hunt elk every other year under the permit only system. And for archery guys that on average only takes 3-6 years to draw a permit. You'd be hunting branch bull elk every other year.
Post by: high country on March 03, 2010, 05:56:09 PM
High Country I don't think very many people connect with predators while out hunting. At least I've never seen a camp with a predator in it.
well 3 years running now we have killed a bear in our group of 3 guys. I personally have seen bears nearly every year during the season. seen 2 cougs during the elk season and boat loads of bobcats and song dogs..... but then again, I hunt the "real" east side.
I am not at all knocking your data, but as you know every action has several reactions. if you are into biology, you understand the long term reprocussions of a simple change.
I would be willing to go even/odd if they made us a mlti season state.
Post by: funkster on March 03, 2010, 08:16:20 PM
Draws may be ok for certain species in certain units that are in trouble herd number wise.
I am opposed to going with an all draw system because just like our current draw system you could end up going for years without a tag let alone success.
Odd/Even alternating system by the last number of your Wild ID looks better to me.
Example:
2010 Deer/Odd Elk/Even
2011 Deer/Even Elk/Odd
This is only for General season. This would cut the number of hunters in half but everyone would still get to hunt each year for something to keep traditions and interest. We could still have the current draw system so no one would lose points, and those harvest numbers could be adjusted like they are this year to nearly half for cow elk.
I like this idea 100%! Sounds like a win/win/win situation for the animals,hunter and WDFW!
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:24:48 PM
If you made half the units draw only (no spikes), and half the units over-the-counter, would that not provide everyone opportunity and provide trophy bull opportunity when you get lucky and draw? :dunno:
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 08:30:41 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 03, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
Post by: BLKBEARKLR on March 03, 2010, 08:35:36 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 03, 2010, 08:37:09 PM
Post by: Joeman3285 on March 03, 2010, 09:43:17 PM
The unique problem this state has vs. say Colorado or Oregon (both states with fairly large human populations like us) is a relatively low elk population (approx 50,000 vs 250,000 and 150,000) and general seasons across almost all GMU's. If something doesn't change the human and elk populations will continue to diverge. WDFW needs to step up.
So are you saying the WDFW should call open season on yuppies? That will curb the diversion of elk and human populations. haha sorry... couldn't resist
Post by: carpsniperg2 on March 03, 2010, 10:00:14 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 03, 2010, 11:52:21 PM
i am so ticked at Oregon this year about the new changes i don't even want to think of washington permit only
What???? Oregon is the ideologue that Bobcat bases his entire bases on, surely with such a perfect system they have you can't possibly be upset! :chuckle:
Post by: high country on March 04, 2010, 05:39:05 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2010, 07:17:06 AM
Post by: Sawbuck on March 04, 2010, 07:42:12 AM
Wow well said Sneaky.I don't think it is right for you to imply that just because somebody doesn't think permit only is the way to go that they are a selfish whiskey drinking elk hunter that doesn't care about the elk or the future of elk hunting. I am a third generation washington elk hunter and I hope the privilege of being able to harvest an elk is there for my kids and grandkids. Our camp is a group of family and friends that loves to hunt, we don't sit around and drink whiskey.
One reason I get upset is because Despite the fact that in the Colockum in the past 6 years 70% of the branch bulls have been killed off and every year 75-85% of yearling bulls are killed. This is a herd that has been completely decimated. Yet when someone mentions that it needs to be permit only to rebuild it and figure out a better way for it to be managed. Most people :'( and complain about THEIR hunting rights and how it will ruin their season etc. HOW SELFISH!!!!! That's what angers me. What numbers will it take for people to wake up and not be so selfish??? 80%, 90%???? I get mad because people are so selfish and only care about themselves. What happened to making sure and striving towards giving our kids better hunting than we have? Instead people care more about the chance to sit around and drink whiskey than the animals they hunt.
I posted this to get ideas flowing and a good topic for debate and discussion. So even if I don't agree with you I want to say thank you everyone who has contributed. This is how things start to change for the better. :brew:
Your numbers might be spot on, but that's all they are are numbers. Speculation of what the numbers will be if permit only was implemented is just that, a speculation. We are free to submit our opinions and research to the WDFW, but at the end of the day it is their responsibility to manage our elk herds. I agree that some changes need to be made, but I don't think that something as drastic as permit only is the answer. This thread took the idea of permit only from the Colockum, to Yakimia, to the whole eastside, and I even read a post that said the whole state. Where does it stop, and what is the true end goal? What is this "improved hunting" that guys keep talking about? Does the permit only crowd think that this will allow them have the woods to themselves with there pick of any 300 class bull they want? The hard truth is that this state with all of its issues, such as human population, hunters, predators, and road access to elk habitat, will never be able support an elk population that would allow for the hunting opportunities that we see in other states. If good elk conservation is a larger population for greater opportunities to hunt them lets take steps in that direction by reducing cow permits and shutting down some more of the roads to motorized vehicles. Oh wait, that has already been done, and the WDFW continues to adjust permit numbers as they need to. I'm not saying that they are doing a perfect job, or that it is a perfect permit system, but its not a bad system. I remember going to the feed stations as a kid and it was a big deal to see a six point, now I take my kids and there are a number of branch antlered bulls. The same goes for hunting. When I started elk hunting it was nice to see a handfull of elk the whole season, since the permit system was implemented the numbers have gone up, and I see elk almost every time I go out. True, I can't shoot the big bulls I see, I've only been drawn for my area once, but I get to see them and most years I get my spike. The hunting opportunities are here now, and with proper management can continue to be here for years to come. If you want fewer hunters and more elk ("improved hunting") hunt further back, or go out of state. Don't try to push an unproven idea of permit only on all elk hunters.
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2010, 07:58:28 AM
Post by: fishm@n on March 04, 2010, 08:04:58 AM
The unique problem this state has vs. say Colorado or Oregon (both states with fairly large human populations like us) is a relatively low elk population (approx 50,000 vs 250,000 and 150,000) and general seasons across almost all GMU's. If something doesn't change the human and elk populations will continue to diverge. WDFW needs to step up.
So are you saying the WDFW should call open season on yuppies? That will curb the diversion of elk and human populations. haha sorry... couldn't resist
I like that idea.. Open season only in Seattle and Bellevue. 10 WDFW bonus points for anybody with a PETA bumper sticker!
Post by: funkster on March 04, 2010, 08:55:14 AM
This thread took the idea of permit only from the Colockum, to Yakimia, to the whole eastside, and I even read a post that said the whole state. Where does it stop, and what is the true end goal? What is this "improved hunting" that guys keep talking about? [/quote]
You cannot only make east/westside permit only! In my opinion you have to go all or nothing. If you made one side permit it would flood the other side with hunters. This would particularly hurt westside hunting because most of the land is owned by Private timber companies making relatively big units small. What I mean by that is hunters are con setrated usually in a 5 miles square around any locked gate.
The true end goal IMPO is to strengthen the herds through genetics. This happens when mature bulls pass the seed instead of young bulls. States that manage herds with draw only system are thriving in herd numbers and mature bull harvest rates. This continues with handing out the right number of cow tags to keep the bull to cow ratio correct. The improved hunting will ONLY come with a better draw system like in other states. Washington harvest for elk is right around 10%, well below a lot of other states.
Post by: colockumelk on March 04, 2010, 09:37:34 AM
When only .75-1 out of every 5 spikes live through the hunting season don't you think something should be done to stop this??? If not then YOU tell me what should be done in the Colockum or the yakima and Kittitas Mule Deer herd (which has taken an over 50% nose dive in the last six years)
Post by: Sawbuck on March 04, 2010, 08:00:57 PM
Sawbuck I think you took my post out of context. When I'm referring to people who don't want the Colockum to go permit only then yes they are SELFISH!! If you have a 70% reduction in numbers and you think that that trend is going to change then that person is ignorant or naive. If they don't care then they are selfish. But if you still think a herd that has been decimated such as the colockum should still have a general season then let me ask YOU yourself a question. At what point would you want some conservation to take place. 80, 90 or 95%???
When only .75-1 out of every 5 spikes live through the hunting season don't you think something should be done to stop this??? If not then YOU tell me what should be done in the Colockum or the yakima and Kittitas Mule Deer herd (which has taken an over 50% nose dive in the last six years)
First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management. The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.
I am somewhat "ignorant" when it comes to the Colockum herd. Could you tell me a little more about the "70% reduction" in numbers? Is this per year or a number of years? And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls, lets just say eighty for an example, out of about five hundred elk. I walked away thinking that that was a pretty good percentage of spikes that made it, and that herd of elk looked pretty balanced (of course, just my opinion; I'm not a biologist, and viewing a few elk is by no means a study). It would be a far different picture if your plan was implemented in the GMUs that those elk migrate to. I believe it would look similar to the way it was before the current draw system was implemented. In eastern Washington, if the branched antlered bulls (3pt or better) are hunted, it won't be very many years until the feed lots are once again full of cows, spikes and only a handfull of branched antlered bulls. When the east side was any bull, which elk made it to the feedlot? One or two big six points, hundreds of cows and some small bulls. The big bulls just didn't survive much and the genetics are with them. The Colockum may be in trouble; I'm in no position to even speculate about what should be done to improve that specific situation. However, if you want to increase elk numbers in a particular area, it probably wouldn't be smart to target the 3pt or better population and cows.
I'm going to leave the deer thing alone for now; this is a thread about elk.
Post by: high country on March 04, 2010, 08:04:50 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 04, 2010, 08:10:28 PM
First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management. The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.
A permit only system would not be "blanket wildlife management." It would simply be MANAGEMENT. Which we don't have now. With a permit system, each herd WOULD be addressed specifically. That would be the whole point of having a permit system. They could allocate the number of tags per GMU based on the elk population in that unit. In a GMU with a lot of elk, a lot of tags would be issued. In the Coluckum GMU's, obviously, very few permits could be issued until the numbers come back up.
Some of you seem to think it would severely restrict the number of hunters. That isn't necessarily true. They could still allow the same number of hunters in certain GMU's that currently hunt there under the unlimited over-the-counter tag system we have now. And in units that need to have reduced hunting pressure, they could regulate them accordingly. The system we have now... how can that be called management ??? Hunters go randomly wherever they choose. The WDFW does not manage the number of hunters at all.
Post by: Sawbuck on March 04, 2010, 08:29:15 PM
Currently we do have a permit system, and that is MANAGEMENT. Currently the population is assessed and the bull and cow permits are adjusted accordingly. You might not like it or agree with it, but it is management and say what you want about the WDFW; they probably know more than most of us put together about wildlife management. You can call changing one area because of another what you want, I called it blanket management, but what I should have called it is flat out poor management (IMHO).First of all, I'm not saying that nothing needs to be done about the Colockum; I'm saying that implementing a permit only system for every elk herd in Washington state and/or eastern Washington, based on problems with one particular herd, is blanket wildlife management, and that is not good wildlife management. The problems of each herd should be addressed specifically, which is the job of the Dept. of Wildlife.
A permit only system would not be "blanket wildlife management." It would simply be MANAGEMENT. Which we don't have now. With a permit system, each herd WOULD be addressed specifically. That would be the whole point of having a permit system. They could allocate the number of tags per GMU based on the elk population in that unit. In a GMU with a lot of elk, a lot of tags would be issued. In the Coluckum GMU's, obviously, very few permits could be issued until the numbers come back up.
Some of you seem to think it would severely restrict the number of hunters. That isn't necessarily true. They could still allow the same number of hunters in certain GMU's that currently hunt there under the unlimited over-the-counter tag system we have now. And in units that need to have reduced hunting pressure, they could regulate them accordingly. The system we have now... how can that be called management ??? Hunters go randomly wherever they choose. The WDFW does not manage the number of hunters at all.
Post by: colockumelk on March 05, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls,population and cows.
Well I will tell you that around 70% of yearling bulls ARE killed in the Colockum every year. Then another 10% die from natural causes. Yearling bulls have a 10% mortality rate every year. (ie wounding deaths, cougars, disease, injury)
2nd of all the elk in the Joe Watt feeding station is part of the YAKIMA elk herd, not the Colockum elk herd. So you really don't think an 80% mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. Wow what a bold statement. You really don't care do you?? That statement truly says something about your priorities. Just kill them all right???
The Colockum elk herd is also very different from the Yakima elk herd in regards to migration. 2/3 of the Colockum elk herd live east of Highway 97. In short they don't migrate much. Where the Yakima elk herd is the opposite. 2/3 or more stay high until the snow comes. So aerial surveys on the Colockum herd are VERY, VERY accurate. Where the Yakima surveys can be as much as 30% off. But who cares right kill em all off.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 03:48:12 PM
Yes and NE might possibly be the exception and wouldn't need to be on a draw. But there would somehow have to be a requirement that if you apply for a draw only unit and don't draw, you can't hunt the OTC units.
That is exactly how it is done in Utah. ;)
Everyone can apply for a limited-entry elk hunt (roughly half the elk habitat in the state). Then later in the year, over the counter tags go on sale for the over-the-counter areas (roughly the other half of elk habitat in the state). Best of both worlds, that is why Utah gets my vote for best management.
When the Book Cliffs were nearly void of mule deer, the Utah DWR shut deer hunting down for three years. Now the Book Cliffs are again a prized mule deer hunting destination. :twocents:
They did the same thing in the Henry Mtns, now it's som e of the best mule deer hunting in the west.
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 03:52:30 PM
Is there a quota on the otc units?
Post by: colockumelk on March 05, 2010, 04:18:23 PM
I think that the permit only thing is gonna come eventually. I would like to see a permit only system implemented in a way that we can all agree on and live with. Because if it's done the WDFW way than it's gonna suck!!!
I really like your idea. Maybe have all the Yakima and Colockum GMU's permit only but leave the wilderness areas open to OTC. And leave the Spokane and Walla Walla units OTC. I mistitled it. It should be if the Yakima and Colockum tags went to permit only.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 04:42:11 PM
Bobcat, yes there is a quota, but it's pretty large. No problem getting a tag if you don't wait till the last minute.
Washington
So far WDFW has unlimited tags for bull or cow in most of NE so that could help fill the gap if more areas were limited-entry only in WA.
Post by: ThePascoKid on March 05, 2010, 05:44:30 PM
Quote
And leave the Spokane and Walla Walla units OTCI don't see the Blues being able to handle the increased pressure from people who didn't draw for Yakima/Colockum. I would rather the Blues went permit only also. :twocents:
Post by: funkster on March 05, 2010, 06:22:00 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 06:49:56 PM
So if every person who applied for an archery bull elk permit in the 300 units put in for 4 choices, you can divide that 7,800 by 4 and that will give you the number of people that applied. I'm guessing not everybody would apply for 4 choices. The average might be 2, so divide it in half and 3,900 people applied.
I'm not sure where you got the 5200 people archery hunting in the 300 units. I haven't found any report that gives that info. Unless you were looking at the 2007 harvest reports. In 2008 they left out all that information. All they give you is the number of animals killed per GMU, not the number of hunters.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 07:11:10 PM
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 07:29:24 PM
We don't all get to hunt moose every year. I don't hear anybody saying that's not fair.
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 07:40:41 PM
Jeez, can't beleive I have to explain this. :rolleyes:
Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....
Do you get the idea? By putting some Draw-Only and some OTC in each region you devise a plan that a greater number of people can live with. :)
A very wise man once told me, "The best plan is a plan where everyone wins." :IBCOOL:
Post by: funkster on March 05, 2010, 07:43:23 PM
I have no idea, that is the biologists' job to figure the numbers out. Where did you get your numbers? I can tell you that there was not 7,800 people that applied for archery bull elk permits. I added the numbers up and came up with about that, but that is not the number of people applying, it is the number of times a hunt got applied for, if that makes sense (probably doesn't)
So if every person who applied for an archery bull elk permit in the 300 units put in for 4 choices, you can divide that 7,800 by 4 and that will give you the number of people that applied. I'm guessing not everybody would apply for 4 choices. The average might be 2, so divide it in half and 3,900 people applied.
I'm not sure where you got the 5200 people archery hunting in the 300 units. I haven't found any report that gives that info. Unless you were looking at the 2007 harvest reports. In 2008 they left out all that information. All they give you is the number of animals killed per GMU, not the number of hunters.
The 3,900 was exactly what I was thinking too but didn't know how to explain it.
I got the 5,200 hunters from the 2007 harvest report the newest info they had.
Post by: Sawbuck on March 05, 2010, 08:06:45 PM
And no, I don't think that an 80% spike mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. I would bet that that number is a little high; I'll give you that one. A few weeks ago at the Watt feed lot, I counted sixteen spikes and numerous branch antlered bulls,population and cows.
Well I will tell you that around 70% of yearling bulls ARE killed in the Colockum every year. Then another 10% die from natural causes. Yearling bulls have a 10% mortality rate every year. (ie wounding deaths, cougars, disease, injury)
2nd of all the elk in the Joe Watt feeding station is part of the YAKIMA elk herd, not the Colockum elk herd. So you really don't think an 80% mortality rate is something that needs to be stopped. Wow what a bold statement. You really don't care do you?? That statement truly says something about your priorities. Just kill them all right???
The Colockum elk herd is also very different from the Yakima elk herd in regards to migration. 2/3 of the Colockum elk herd live east of Highway 97. In short they don't migrate much. Where the Yakima elk herd is the opposite. 2/3 or more stay high until the snow comes. So aerial surveys on the Colockum herd are VERY, VERY accurate. Where the Yakima surveys can be as much as 30% off. But who cares right kill em all off.
I know the Watt feed station is part of the Yakima herd. I brought it up as an example of why I don't believe your plan will work. As far as the spike mortality rate goes, I was merely observing that if the rate of the herd at the Watt feed station was anywhere near that, that it doesn't appear to be a problem. If it's not that high, why would we manage other elk such as the Yakima herd with the same plan as the elk in the Colockum? That just doesn't make sense. Regarding what I care about, because you don't know me, you aren't in a position to tell me what I do or do not care about.
Closer to my home is a herd of elk that had many of the same issues that you have described in the Colockum. The Nooksack herd hasn't had a general season for years, and is basicly permit only except for the outlying areas and damage hunts. It wouldn't make sense for the WDFW to implement the same management plan it has for the Nooksack herd for all of western Washington, just like it doesn't make sense for all of eastern Washington to have the same plan that the Colockum has. Maybe what they did in the Nooksack needs to be done in the Colockum, but that is for state to decide. I've said it before that I don't think the current permit system that we have is perfect, but it is much better than having to draw a tag to hunt elk in eastern Washington. If a specific area has an issue deal with that area, don't change the whole eastside. :twocents:
Post by: Sawbuck on March 05, 2010, 08:12:48 PM
In order to implement a good elk plan, you need a plan that is suitable to the most people where you can accomplished the goal of bull escapement to meet management objectives and meet public acceptance.Thank you for spelling it out :chuckle: :chuckle:
Jeez, can't beleive I have to explain this. :rolleyes:
Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....
Do you get the idea? By putting some Draw-Only and some OTC in each region you devise a plan that a greater number of people can live with. :)
A very wise man once told me, "The best plan is a plan where everyone wins." :IBCOOL:
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 08:52:13 PM
Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....
All the things you listed can be had with permit only elk hunting, with the exception of hunting every year. And for that I say too bad. Too many hunters, not enough elk. Some people will have to grow up and realize that life just isn't fair. :'(
And besides, I think EVERYBODY would like to hunt every year. But you say they're not willing to wait? Then go hunt another state that has more elk, or go help other people on their hunt in the years when you don't draw a tag. Or hunt bears, or birds, or coyotes.
Jeez, can't believe I have to explain this. :rolleyes:
Post by: sako223 on March 05, 2010, 09:30:16 PM
I have proposed this to several life hunters and have had zero negative feedback. In fact all agreed with little thought. It does not seem to carry complexities of other ideas either, or the risk of not hunting for several years.
Frustration with crowded season is obvious. Numbers can be adjusted within our current draw system with a stroke of the keyboard.
If we go to permit only I will be out for deer & elk hunting. I see no reason to pay and wait not knowing if I'll get a tag year after year.
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 10:04:04 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 05, 2010, 10:18:48 PM
Not all hunters in this state are trophy hunters.
Not all hunters are meat hunters.
Not all hunters are willing to wait, many like to hunt each year.
Not all hunters will drive 200 miles for a hunt.
Not all hunters believe you should have to drive 200 miles to go hunting.
Not all hunters............and on and on.....
All the things you listed can be had with permit only elk hunting, with the exception of hunting every year. And for that I say too bad. Too many hunters, not enough elk. Some people will have to grow up and realize that life just isn't fair. :'(
And besides, I think EVERYBODY would like to hunt every year. But you say they're not willing to wait? Then go hunt another state that has more elk, or go help other people on their hunt in the years when you don't draw a tag. Or hunt bears, or birds, or coyotes.
Jeez, can't believe I have to explain this. :rolleyes:
bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far most hunters want time in the field. If you want trophy hunting in this state (we are both of this mindset) you need to find a plan that can somehow satisffy the masses. Thw WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority to satisfy a few trophy hunters.
Even more importantly in this argument, WDFW is probably not going to give up revenue raised with annual tag sales. The biggest problem I see in so many arguments made by hunters is their own self interest without consideration for other hunters. :twocents:
Jeez :rolleyes: (that's in good spirit my friend)
Post by: bobcat on March 05, 2010, 11:30:59 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 05, 2010, 11:48:55 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2010, 03:00:32 AM
Who said the goal of draw only is "trophy hunting." That would all be dependent on how many tags were issued in each GMU.
OK my mistake, I assumed...I will rephrase with care:
bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.
Additionally important in this discussion, WDFW can not afford to lose the revenue raised with annual elk tag sales. A winning elk management strategy would need to incorporate a means to develop revenue for the WDFW, a means to improve bull escapement, a means to offer improved trophy opportunity, a means to offer improved success for meat hunters, and a means to maximize the number of hunter days in the field.
The biggest problem I see in so many proposals, is the display of a hunter's own self interest without consideration for other hunter's interests. :twocents:
Post by: high country on March 06, 2010, 05:26:50 AM
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2010, 05:47:55 AM
Post by: bobcat on March 06, 2010, 07:13:03 AM
Quote
A. Maximum group sizes are determined for each category. If
a group application is drawn, all hunters in the group will receive
a special hunting season permit and each hunter in the group can take
an animal. If the number of permits available in a hunt category
is less than the maximum group size, then the maximum group size is
equal to the number of permits.
i. Maximum group size for deer categories is 8.
ii. Maximum group size for elk categories is 8.
iii. Maximum group size for bear categories is 2.
iv. Maximum group size for cougar categories is 2.
v. Maximum group size for mountain goat categories is 2.
vi. Maximum group size for bighorn sheep categories is 2.
vii. Maximum group size for fall turkey categories is 4.
Post by: bobcat on March 06, 2010, 07:24:44 AM
bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.
No I'm not missing the point. It's just that I think it's more important for the WDFW to manage the state's elk properly than to cater to us hunters. What the point of having an unlimited number of elk tags if there are no elk or very few elk to hunt ??? A loss of revenue from a decrease in tag sales is an easy problem to fix. Just increase the price of a tag to make up the difference. So if tags were cut by 50% you simply double the price.
Post by: alanger on March 06, 2010, 07:34:03 AM
bobcat I think you are missing the whole point. If you attend WDFW meetings, by far, most hunters want the most time in the field possible. If more limited-entry-only elk hunting units are desired in this state, a plan that can satisfy the most hunters needs to be devised for better acceptance. The WDFW would not be doing their job to ignore the wishes of the majority of hunters to satisfy a few of the hunters.
No I'm not missing the point. It's just that I think it's more important for the WDFW to manage the state's elk properly than to cater to us hunters. What the point of having an unlimited number of elk tags if there are no elk or very few elk to hunt ??? A loss of revenue from a decrease in tag sales is an easy problem to fix. Just increase the price of a tag to make up the difference. So if tags were cut by 50% you simply double the price.
THey don't cater us hunters, they cater $$$$$$
THe prices for tags are already rediculous for wa. they are driving hunters away. Look at other states as a resident, their tags arent 30-40 dollars a tag, they are like 10-25. They haven't made much effort to cater the hunters. just the revenue.
Post by: Sawbuck on March 06, 2010, 07:45:22 AM
That is exactly why we will probably not see a major change in the current system.
Post by: bobcat on March 06, 2010, 07:48:14 AM
Post by: alanger on March 06, 2010, 07:51:06 AM
I think other states can afford have lower prices on their resident tags, as they make a larger portion of their money from non-resident hunters. I'd rather pay $80 for an elk tag every other year and have elk to hunt, than $40 every year and have few to no elk to hunt.
Now i see where your coming from now. thanks for clearin that up.
I somewhat agree with you, but 80 bucks is pretty steep but like you said, every other year isn't too bad. I almost think they neeed to shut the colockum down for a couple years and just get the herd in order, they always get shot to chit everyyear.
Post by: Sawbuck on March 06, 2010, 08:12:55 AM
I think other states can afford have lower prices on their resident tags, as they make a larger portion of their money from non-resident hunters. I'd rather pay $80 for an elk tag every other year and have elk to hunt, than $40 every year and have few to no elk to hunt.58,000 elk is hardly "few to no elk to hunt"
www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/ (http://www.rmef.org/Hunting/Features/Articles/)
Post by: huntnphool on March 06, 2010, 08:36:57 AM
58,000 elk is
hardly "few to no elk to hunt"
It is when you never leave the comfy comfines of your cab. :chuckle:
Post by: rougheye on March 06, 2010, 08:41:14 AM
Post by: sako223 on March 06, 2010, 08:50:57 AM
Quote
the only problem I see with even odd design is this.....if my number is the opposite of my pard/dad/son......etc, that is going to cause some heartburn
Yes that could happen but friends and family can still go along and help. The odd/even would just be for deer/elk general season. The existing permit system would stay in place with single or multiple hunter entry. Success rates on permit hunts are much higher.
Quote
58,000 elk is hardly "few to no elk to hunt"
Sounds like a lot but that's not how many are available to shoot. WA is struggling to balance hunters/elk with a 10% general season success rate. Neighboring states that we always get compared to have 2-3 times as many elk.
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 06, 2010, 09:04:09 AM
Post by: rougheye on March 06, 2010, 09:05:17 AM
simple fix. If you live on the westside you hunt on the westside. If you like on the eastside you hunt on the eastside. Eastside elk herd officially fixed! :chuckle:
woohoo best idea ive heard yet :chuckle:
Post by: Sawbuck on March 06, 2010, 09:09:45 AM
Hunt harder , lots of opportunities in Wa . Dont punish the few that work there arse off every year and ARE successful ;)
Right on Rougheye!!! This state has opportunity if you want to work for it. If someone has a problem with crowds they don't have anybody to blame but themselves.
simple fix. If you live on the westside you hunt on the westside. If you like on the eastside you hunt on the eastside. Eastside elk herd officially fixed! :chuckle:
If that happened I would move to the eastside. :chuckle:
Post by: Karl Blanchard on March 06, 2010, 09:19:54 AM
Post by: CoryTDF on March 06, 2010, 09:34:27 AM
Post by: 3dvapor on March 06, 2010, 10:30:18 AM
I would be willing to try it for a few years. I archery hunt so it would not really change my hunting other than giving me a better chance for a big bull tag. We will, however, start seeing a decline in the number of enormous Washington bulls. That is just plain common sense. The reason units like Dayton have those huge bulls is because they are given plenty of time to get that big. Once a bull grows that second point he pretty much has a free pass to get as big as he can. People who draw those tags don't typically go after the smaller younger bulls. if we have more people hunting bulls and are able to hunt them more often i think we will see less people holding out for those big bulls. Thus lowering the chance for a bull to live and grow to his full potential. It would be interesting to try this and see how it pans out. It would be a shame to see a decline in the number of really big bulls, but that is just a risk that would have to be taken. If the plan wont work it can always be changed. It has my vote for now. :twocents:Arizona already has a permit only system. For the amount of elk habitat that they have to work with, i would say it is very successful. if our state adopted similar management strategies elk numbers and revenue would go up. some units 20-30 bulls per hundred cows and others 40-50bulls. our system is not based on healthy herd management. this would work wether or not you were a meat hunter or trophy hunter. ive been in units like 1 in arizona with 54 bulls per 100 cows and it was awesome. 150-200 any bull permits just for archery and 300 for cows. the best part was the success rates. our state has way more habitat which would expand hunting opportunities and wait times between tags would be much less than arizona. everyone wants to hunt there for one reason and that is they manage game first.
Post by: huntnphool on March 06, 2010, 11:14:24 AM
Post by: sako223 on March 06, 2010, 01:09:02 PM
Quote
Arizona already has a permit only system. For the amount of elk habitat that they have to work with, i would say it is very successful. if our state adopted similar management strategies elk numbers and revenue would go up. some units 20-30 bulls per hundred cows and others 40-50bulls. our system is not based on healthy herd management. this would work wether or not you were a meat hunter or trophy hunter. ive been in units like 1 in arizona with 54 bulls per 100 cows and it was awesome. 150-200 any bull permits just for archery and 300 for cows. the best part was the success rates. our state has way more habitat which would expand hunting opportunities and wait times between tags would be much less than arizona. everyone wants to hunt there for one reason and that is they manage game first.
Arizona has less than half the elk of WA. Arizona has problems too, like WA elk herd reduction for predation on agriculture. There will be plenty of complaining this year when tags are cut in half to increase herd size again.
you cannot increase herd size by harvesting. So where is the increase in revenue? High success rates, but for how many hunters and how often.
A low success year or simply high gas prices can cut license sales in half.
Several surrounding states with 2-3 times the elk we have manage with the same or lower ratios than WA. They are often referred to as great hunting states.
Elk are not the only ones sharing the resources and mother nature plays a big role. Easy winters seem to help but the corresponding dry summers don't.
Post by: Legacy on March 06, 2010, 01:17:28 PM
Post by: sako223 on March 06, 2010, 01:22:12 PM
Post by: huntnphool on March 06, 2010, 01:24:48 PM
Quote
Are the guys on this thread who are complaining about the possibility of $80 elk tags the same guys who have tens of thousand of $$ invested in quads, pickups, trailers, campers, tents, firearms, bows, binocs, spotting scopes, hunting gear, etc?
Relax Legacy, the only one that expressed their opinion on an $80 tag is a 15 year old kid, and I highly doubt at his age he has accumulated "quads,pickups,trailers,campers,tents" so to him $80 IS a lot of money.
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 06, 2010, 01:33:58 PM
Post by: 3dvapor on March 06, 2010, 04:48:43 PM
Post by: bearpaw on March 06, 2010, 05:11:28 PM
Post by: hughjorgan on March 06, 2010, 06:16:12 PM
Post by: 3dvapor on March 06, 2010, 11:39:34 PM
What would be the purpose of making the Yakima units permit only? Quality? Opportunity to hunt bulls more often? Personally that herd seems like it is doing just fine. No need to fix something that isn't broken, IMO. If it is to crowded for you then maybe think about switching weapon choice. Or if you want to hunt branched antler bulls hunt the westside. The only thing I think the WDFW needs to do differently is tweek the special draw system a little bit.keep drinking the wdfw koolaid :chuckle:
Post by: hughjorgan on March 06, 2010, 11:48:27 PM
What would be the purpose of making the Yakima units permit only? Quality? Opportunity to hunt bulls more often? Personally that herd seems like it is doing just fine. No need to fix something that isn't broken, IMO. If it is to crowded for you then maybe think about switching weapon choice. Or if you want to hunt branched antler bulls hunt the westside. The only thing I think the WDFW needs to do differently is tweek the special draw system a little bit.keep drinking the wdfw koolaid :chuckle:
Why don't you answer the question I asked instead of making some snide remark. What it comes down to people are lazy and they don't want to compete with others to get their animals. Tough luck if you are to damn lazy to work hard to get your animal. There is ample opportunity to hunt depending what you value in hunting. The herd is healthy in the yakima area and there is no reason that I can see for going to a permit only season.
Post by: ThePascoKid on March 07, 2010, 08:31:25 AM
Quote
What it comes down to people are lazy and they don't want to compete with others to get their animals. Tough luck if you are to damn lazy to work hard to get your animal. There is ample opportunity to hunt depending what you value in hunting. The herd is healthy in the yakima area and there is no reason that I can see for going to a permit only season.
For me it's not necessarily that i don't want to work hard to get an elk, it's that I would like all the time and effort to be spent chasing branched antler bulls a little more often than once in a lifetime, which is about the draw odds in the Blues. Maybe I'm selfish but I would like a chance to hunt a big bull on my own property before I'm so damn old I can't get around anymore. Now with the new system, all the meat hunters will be putting in for bull permits and my odds just went down even more.
Post by: boneaddict on March 07, 2010, 08:42:21 AM
Argueing with Bobcat is in my mind like having a third wife. (more tongue and cheek)
WOnder if I can come up with any others other than reading this whole thread.
Management of the Nooksak...hey did they fix tribal hunting issue in the nooksack, or did going to permit only make their hunting better. Just curious.
By the way....who plans to go to draw only or even odd and still only hunt spikes.
By the way, they could have increased elk tags to $80 a pop already and I wouldn't have noticed. By the time I finished with my cart for the WDFW, it was almost $300 and I am a resident. :yike:
Post by: carpsniperg2 on March 07, 2010, 09:14:49 AM
Post by: sako223 on March 07, 2010, 09:17:03 AM
Quote
By the way....who plans to go to draw only or even odd and still only hunt spikes.
Odd/Even idea is for general season only and still allows for the current special permit system, which offers both cow and any bull permits. Same situation with deer.
Some people with a special permits skip general season anyway.
Post by: 3dvapor on March 07, 2010, 09:59:33 AM
I dont think killing 70percent of the total spikes a year is healthy herd management along with bringing the herd size down from 11,500 to 9,500 is either. i believe low success rates reflect that but maybe they were just lazy. remember the same management let herd numbers drop from several thousand elk to just a few hundred in the blues, which those numbers have not changed and the whole time considered the herd healthy.What would be the purpose of making the Yakima units permit only? Quality? Opportunity to hunt bulls more often? Personally that herd seems like it is doing just fine. No need to fix something that isn't broken, IMO. If it is to crowded for you then maybe think about switching weapon choice. Or if you want to hunt branched antler bulls hunt the westside. The only thing I think the WDFW needs to do differently is tweek the special draw system a little bit.keep drinking the wdfw koolaid :chuckle:
Why don't you answer the question I asked instead of making some snide remark. What it comes down to people are lazy and they don't want to compete with others to get their animals. Tough luck if you are to damn lazy to work hard to get your animal. There is ample opportunity to hunt depending what you value in hunting. The herd is healthy in the yakima area and there is no reason that I can see for going to a permit only season.
Post by: boneaddict on March 07, 2010, 10:12:20 AM
Post by: hunterofelk on March 07, 2010, 10:18:36 AM
Post by: sako223 on March 07, 2010, 10:21:28 AM
Quote
bringing the herd size down from 11,500 to 9,500 is either.
I don't like a reduction in the herd either but the cut was done by permit & harvested by hunters.
The reason for the reduction was primarily clashes with agricultural issues. The elk were damaging crops and eating harvested goods. When the herd numbers were at a high the forest service was complaining of excess damage.
This year elk hunters will pay for those extra permits when they are cut in half.
Post by: 3dvapor on March 07, 2010, 10:58:29 AM
i guess im just being optomistic and see the potential of our state. ive also hunted utah famed pauns. for mule deer. it was exceptional on a down year. Utah responded immediately to lower buck ratios cutting tags and improving habitat. I still remember how many deer we lost in the winter of 93-94. i dont think those numbers have ever come back. driving hwy 12 at night was a thrill trying to miss all the deer at night crossing the road, some nice bucks too.Yes and NE might possibly be the exception and wouldn't need to be on a draw. But there would somehow have to be a requirement that if you apply for a draw only unit and don't draw, you can't hunt the OTC units.
That is exactly how it is done in Utah. ;)
Everyone can apply for a limited-entry elk hunt (roughly half the elk habitat in the state). Then later in the year, over the counter tags go on sale for the over-the-counter areas (roughly the other half of elk habitat in the state). Best of both worlds, that is why Utah gets my vote for best management.
When the Book Cliffs were nearly void of mule deer, the Utah DWR shut deer hunting down for three years. Now the Book Cliffs are again a prized mule deer hunting destination. :twocents:
They did the same thing in the Henry Mtns, now it's som e of the best mule deer hunting in the west.
Post by: bearpaw on March 07, 2010, 12:28:32 PM
There is room in this state to offer various units with a variety of management objectives in each region to suit the biggest number of hunters where they wouldn't have to travel across the state to hunt if they didn't want to. The biggest problem I see is that no one is willing to give a little, it's all their way or the highway. Pretty self centered attitude if you ask me.
Well that just doesn't work, some of you need to quit being so selfish with your own desires and look for ideas that can work together to satisfy a broad range of interests, then you can reach a concensus with a group and try to get something done. :twocents:
Post by: 3dvapor on March 07, 2010, 01:32:32 PM
Post by: alanger on March 07, 2010, 02:13:08 PM
simple fix. If you live on the westside you hunt on the westside. If you like on the eastside you hunt on the eastside. Eastside elk herd officially fixed! :chuckle:
If that happened I would move to the eastside. :chuckle:
[/quote]
So be it, im sure you wouldn't be the first. :chuckle:
Post by: hughjorgan on March 07, 2010, 05:19:43 PM
I dont think killing 70percent of the total spikes a year is healthy herd management along with bringing the herd size down from 11,500 to 9,500 is either. i believe low success rates reflect that but maybe they were just lazy. remember the same management let herd numbers drop from several thousand elk to just a few hundred in the blues, which those numbers have not changed and the whole time considered the herd healthy.What would be the purpose of making the Yakima units permit only? Quality? Opportunity to hunt bulls more often? Personally that herd seems like it is doing just fine. No need to fix something that isn't broken, IMO. If it is to crowded for you then maybe think about switching weapon choice. Or if you want to hunt branched antler bulls hunt the westside. The only thing I think the WDFW needs to do differently is tweek the special draw system a little bit.keep drinking the wdfw koolaid :chuckle:
Why don't you answer the question I asked instead of making some snide remark. What it comes down to people are lazy and they don't want to compete with others to get their animals. Tough luck if you are to damn lazy to work hard to get your animal. There is ample opportunity to hunt depending what you value in hunting. The herd is healthy in the yakima area and there is no reason that I can see for going to a permit only season.
So, where did you get that 70 percent of spikes are killed every year, is this for all the eastside? The yakima herd? The colockum herd? Blues Mtn herd? There is a problem with the way they have managed the Colockum, no argument there. I don't see how you can argue the Yakima Elk herd isn't healthy, the spike management has worked in these GMU's, all you have to do is go and check out the feed lots during the winter to see how well it has worked. There are lots of big bulls running around in the Yakima herd.
Post by: 3dvapor on March 07, 2010, 07:52:09 PM
those numbers come from ted clausing regional manager wdfw and that is the yakima herd. As i stated before i agree with the first post on this thread that his suggestion of tag allotment would be a better alternative to killing 70 percent of the spikes every year. the both of us will probably always disagree on this issue besides i dont think washington will ever be willing to give up the $$ to put game management as there #1 priority.I dont think killing 70percent of the total spikes a year is healthy herd management along with bringing the herd size down from 11,500 to 9,500 is either. i believe low success rates reflect that but maybe they were just lazy. remember the same management let herd numbers drop from several thousand elk to just a few hundred in the blues, which those numbers have not changed and the whole time considered the herd healthy.What would be the purpose of making the Yakima units permit only? Quality? Opportunity to hunt bulls more often? Personally that herd seems like it is doing just fine. No need to fix something that isn't broken, IMO. If it is to crowded for you then maybe think about switching weapon choice. Or if you want to hunt branched antler bulls hunt the westside. The only thing I think the WDFW needs to do differently is tweek the special draw system a little bit.keep drinking the wdfw koolaid :chuckle:
Why don't you answer the question I asked instead of making some snide remark. What it comes down to people are lazy and they don't want to compete with others to get their animals. Tough luck if you are to damn lazy to work hard to get your animal. There is ample opportunity to hunt depending what you value in hunting. The herd is healthy in the yakima area and there is no reason that I can see for going to a permit only season.
So, where did you get that 70 percent of spikes are killed every year, is this for all the eastside? The yakima herd? The colockum herd? Blues Mtn herd? There is a problem with the way they have managed the Colockum, no argument there. I don't see how you can argue the Yakima Elk herd isn't healthy, the spike management has worked in these GMU's, all you have to do is go and check out the feed lots during the winter to see how well it has worked. There are lots of big bulls running around in the Yakima herd.
Post by: Turkeyman on March 07, 2010, 08:44:12 PM
Post by: norsepeak on March 07, 2010, 09:09:52 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 08:12:09 AM
So lets say this happens in the near future,how many special permits tags would be issued? Roughly 7,800 applicants put in for a any bull archery tag in the 300 units and 5,200 archer's hunted in the 300 units. How many tags do you all think would be a good quota?
Funkster at the beginning of this topic I posted a link you can go to. In my paper I used the WDFW formula for how they come up with the number of special permits. I ran it by the bios. They said my number was + or - 3%. They also said most likely these numbers would go up as the number of elk and branch bulls increased. Since they told me my numbers were + or - 3% means they have thought about it as well.
Scroll down to see how many permits each unit would have.
Modern used to give out 486 Permits. A permit system would give out 1680 permits
Muzzle Loader used to get 99 permits. A permit system would give out 410 Permits
Archery used to get 498 Permits. A permit system would give out 1619 permits.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85)
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 08:40:46 AM
FACT: Our state has the highest hunter:elk ratio. It's almost 3:1. FACT: Our elk herds encompass a relatively small area thus forcing this large amount of hunters into a confined area. So our WDFW is forced to either manage our herds through permit only system or manage through short seasons and bad times of the year. FACT: We have the LOWEST quality elk hunting amongst states that have elk hunting. The pathetic elk hunting we do have if allowed to continue will be the cause of a continued decline in the numbers of hunters. Do any of you think that this trend will somehow reverse itself if nothing changes????
Post by: bearpaw on March 08, 2010, 08:55:36 AM
The only way to improve the trend is to find a balanced way to manage our elk that offers the greatest number of hunters what they want in a hunting experience and the only way to accomplish that goal in a state like washington is to have a multi-facetted approach. :twocents:
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 09:04:29 AM
Modern used to give out 486 Permits. A permit system would give out 1680 permits
Muzzle Loader used to get 99 permits. A permit system would give out 410 Permits
Archery used to get 498 Permits. A permit system would give out 1619 permits.
http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85 (http://www.washingtonsportsmen.com/?q=node/85)
So to dispell one rumor is that IF (big if) it went to permit only you WOULD get drawn 3.41 times more for a big bull permit than you did before. I think IF (big if) it went to permit only people would eventually embrace it because it would be quality hunting once again. As their success rates went up and the amount of times they drew branch bull permits went up and that of their buddies went up I think people would love the new system. I think people like what they have now because that's all they know. Its kind of like if someone has drank Busch LIght their whole life they would think that is good beer. But then they try a Budweiser and man oh man that changes their whole perspective on what GOOD really means.
One voiced concern was that the quality of big bulls would go down. I don't agree. Look at it this way. Instead of killing the bulls when they are spikeks we would now kill them as 3 point or better bulls. But there is now way to tell for sure whether it would bring the quality of branch bulls down or not.
Someone mentioned that the WDFW would lose revenue. Yes they would. Bobcat mentioned paying $80 for an elk tag. I think what he meant by that is this. Eastside Elk would work much like our multi-season tag. You pay the $5 dollars for your application fee. If you get drawn then you have to buy the tag. If that tag is $80 dollars your still not paying more than you are now. I know a bunch of people said WHAT!!!! Colcokum you are an idiot :) Under a permit only system you are NOT going to draw a branch permit every year. But you WILL draw it every 2-4 years (depending on method and which unit you apply for) So if every 2-4 years you pay $80 where before you paid $40 dollars a year. So that is why while a tag may cost more overall you're not paying more money.
Post by: bearpaw on March 08, 2010, 09:20:32 AM
Montana and Idaho have over the counter opportunity all over the state, but they are even adopting more limited entry areas all the time. Utah ahs their state split in half with over-the-sounter and limited-entry.
As an outfitter I talk to thousands of sportsfolks every year. I get calls all the time from Arizona and Nevada residents who just want to hunt somewhere because they can't draw a tag (draw only states) and they just want to hunt somewhere even though they know the bulls won't be as big in over the counter areas.
To overcome funding problems, Utah charges a lot more for the limited-entry tags when you draw. Over-the-counter tags are much cheaper and satisfy those who just want to go for a hunt.
I'm not coming up with new ideas, I'm just looking at what works and doesn't work very well in other states. :twocents:
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 09:46:48 AM
So maybe leave the NE corner of WA OTC. I don't know much about the Blues so I wont speculate on how to split that up. Make the classic Colockum GMU's (251, 328 and 329) permit only but leave GMU 335 and 249 OTC.
In the Yakima GMU's maybe make the high country places such as GMU's 364, 356, 346 and 336 Permit only. Then leave the lower GMU's OTC such as 368, 360, 352, 340, and 342.
I think that coul work.
Post by: bearpaw on March 08, 2010, 09:50:28 AM
Bearpaw I agree. If something works in a state that is similar to ours then go with what obviously works. Ours obviously does not. And for the record I am a HUGE fan of your idea. I see some small problems such as how and which GMU's do you leave OTC and which ones to you make permit only. Also would the Permit only areas see a large increase in amount of permits given out? But again this is why I'm glad people are inserting their well thought out ideas. Again I like your plan alot.
So maybe leave the NE corner of WA OTC. I don't know much about the Blues so I wont speculate on how to split that up. Make the classic Colockum GMU's (251, 328 and 329) permit only but leave GMU 335 and 249 OTC.
In the Yakima GMU's maybe make the high country places such as GMU's 364, 356, 346 and 336 Permit only. Then leave the lower GMU's OTC such as 368, 360, 352, 340, and 342.
I think that coul work.
I think you are on the right track, I do know it would be nice to see some trophy management in 1 or 2 NE units....
You may have just opened the next can of worms by asking which units remain Open and which to make LE... :chuckle:
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 10:04:35 AM
You may have just opened the next can of worms by asking which units remain Open and which to make LE... :chuckle:
That's what I do best. :stirthepot: :chuckle:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 08, 2010, 10:41:54 AM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay so I guess that would mean that out of the 14 years (including this year) I would have been able to hunt the colockum ( or eastside) 3 times since 1996. I really don't see that as something that would keep me or many of the members of our camp hunting in this state.
Being an old timer on this site at 55 looking out into the future I would also not see too many trips left if I did stay in the state.
I have also seen in other posts on this site CE where you are advocating the need for more road closures too. As an old timer I can say that I have driven just about every road that has already been closed a few times. I have driven into the west bar, I have driven from the North fork Tarpiscan to the Brewton road on the powerlines, the wood and steel lines from 4 corners Naneum/ Jumpoff down to the Coleman Rd. Down Ingersoll its full length,The Petit from Colokum pass to the powerlines near Stray gulch. We were hunting the Colockum pre 1971 when the area between colockum and Brewton roads when it was an open hunting area.There really aren't many left to close that wouldn't pack us all in too tight.
I see your point whereas permit only would create a conservation situation where the tribes would not be accorded thier treaty (advantages) rights,and that would be a GREAT thing. Isn't there another way?
As I have stated before I have a big problem with what DNR has done up there by logging out too much of any cover the animals coud have had making survival rates better than they are. We were much better of with the Colockum wildlife area than we are with the Naneum state forest. Plus we have WDFW swapping more forested higher areas of cover for shrub steppe wide open lower country. ALL about the money (Logs) isn't it?
That is our state leadership which LOVES to limit it's citizens activities as much as they can get away with. So should we now welcome such limitations on our elk hunting? Don't forget we have the Wolf issue coming down the road, We as hunters would become even a smaller minority (Since Many would give it up and not introduce younger generations to our sport) to the anti hunters, and when a liberal gets thier foot in the door what thier Natural tendancy is.
Does anyone here remember the early/late elk tags? that keeps the number of permit applicants down ( oops...less revenue- higher App fees maybe) and lowers the number of hunters in the field on opening day of general season once again giving the critters a better chance of survival. My .02
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 11:03:30 AM
The Colockum is a unique PMU. I'll assume you hunt with a rifle Elkdawg. There would be way, way, way more permits given out than is currently the case. Because so many of it's spikes are slaughtered year after year (not the case in the Yakima GMU's) if it went to permit only the additional amount of permits given out would far exceed the Yakima GMU's. For instance for the Colockum it would go as follows.
Current Rifle Permits: 6. Proposed Permit Only: 301. IE 50 times more permits each year.
ML Permits: 1 Proposed Permit Only: 64 permits IE 64 times more permits each year
Archery Permits: 4 Proposed Permit Only: 287 IE 70 times more permits
Now compare this to a unit such as a Yakima GMU 364 Rimrock. Which has a decent Spike Recruitment Rate.
Rifle Permits: 118 Proposed Permits: 211 IE 1.8 times more permits
ML Permits: 16 Proposed Permits: 30 IE 1.9 times more permits
Archery Permits: 111 Proposed Permits: 166 IE 1.5 times more permits
This also shows where a permit only system would make sense in the Colockum herd but wouldn't make as much sense in the Yakima Herd.
Post by: sako223 on March 08, 2010, 03:56:52 PM
Math figures for likely draw rates look good on paper but as our draw system has shown here and other states, some people just get lucky with several tags in a row while others can go a decade without.
A friend waited years for an any bull tag and hunted hard every day only to take a spike at dark last day.
Many guys will never draw a sheep tag but some have received more than one with raffles and draws. I heard one guy has won three.
Post by: MtnMuley on March 08, 2010, 04:11:54 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 04:45:13 PM
I see the 50-70 times more tags equaling about 650 tags. What is the minus figure? How many OTC tag hunters are displaced?
Math figures for likely draw rates look good on paper but as our draw system has shown here and other states, some people just get lucky with several tags in a row while others can go a decade without.
A friend waited years for an any bull tag and hunted hard every day only to take a spike at dark last day.
Many guys will never draw a sheep tag but some have received more than one with raffles and draws. I heard one guy has won three.
It would displace hunters but IMHO so what? That herd under current conditions can not handle a general season. Do you think the 5 year trend which has seen the branch bull population decline by 70% is going to stop if nothing is changed? If the trend continues the herd will not have a viable breeding population by 2014. In which case the herd itself will cease to exist soon thereafter. So despite the fact that a herd is literally about to be killed off, we should still be able to have a general season? We have the right to hunt but we don't have the right to kill off a herd.
As far as you saying my stats look good on paper but not in reality. Math doesn't lie. Statistics don't lie. If you give out 70 times more tags you WILL get drawn alot more. That's, Math, that's Science and Statistics 101. More tags = Better draw odds. Nobody can refute that.
Post by: bobcat on March 08, 2010, 04:49:51 PM
Post by: sako223 on March 08, 2010, 05:03:44 PM
Quote
It would displace hunters but IMHO so what?Could be thousands of unhappy folks leaving the system. If we lean to hard that way we can easily become more wildlife viewing oriented.
Quote
If you give out 70 times more tags you WILL get drawn alot more.
In general someone will get drawn. No one can guarantee that each person putting in will get drawn every 3.41 years.
It is called draw odds for a reason.
5 rocks added to a bucket each year for five years equals 25 rocks. That's math.
5 permit apps each year for 5 years could be 0 drawn. that's projection.
Post by: colockumelk on March 08, 2010, 05:11:37 PM
The main problem with the Colockum herd is that yearling bull recruitment is far worse than the Yakima herd. Like I said before on average only 15-20% of yearling bulls live through the hunting season. Compared to the Yakima herd which sees about twice that live through the hunting season. There are four main reasons for this.
#1 The Colockum herd is not nearly as migrational as the Yakima herd is. The Yakima herd tends to stay high during the summer and then progressively move down depending on the weather. So a good hunting season is dependant on weather. The Colockum herd tends to stay down low. And in fact 2/3 of the herd stays near the Coffin Reserve. So no matter what the bulk of the herd is found down low.
#2 It's very Open. Compared to the Yakima herd it's very open. While many of the Yakima units are very open as well, most of the Yakima elk are still found up high in the thick stuff during hunting season. In the Colockum many are down low where hunters have a distinct advantage in the open.
#3 Road Access. There is far too much road access in the Colockum. The vast amount of road access doesn't give the elk very many places to hide. There isn't any place to escape to. Couple that with the openness of the terrain and they can't hide very well from our optics.
#4 There twice as many hunters per square mile in the Colockum as there is in the Yakima GMU's.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 11, 2010, 08:12:47 AM
#3 Road Access. There is far too much road access in the Colockum. The vast amount of road access doesn't give the elk very many places to hide. There isn't any place to escape to. Couple that with the openness of the terrain and they can't hide very well from our optics.
There it is again. Could you give us an idea exactly which roads you would propose be CLOSED?
Post by: colockumelk on March 11, 2010, 01:06:56 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 11, 2010, 01:11:07 PM
You cut down road accesss you cut down on both types of poaching. You will also give the elk and deer something which they currently do not have; a place to escape to. 80% of the spikes get smoked every year because with an ATV and a spotting scope there isn't a place to hide. We need to give them some places to escape to. It's pretty simple really.
I know, I know God forbid we make guys walk anymore. I wonder how my 80 year old grand-father was able to hunt elk. Oh yeah he used his feet.
Post by: Legacy on March 11, 2010, 02:13:56 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 11, 2010, 02:19:12 PM
I think it's funny how much people freak out when I talk about road managment. They act like I want to make it into a wilderness are with no wheeled traffic allowed. Legacy I think both you and I know the real reason they freak out about road managment. ;)
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2010, 03:58:19 PM
Achieving management goals in the Colockum
is problematic. Most Colockum antlerless harvest is
designed to address agricultural damage. Recruitment of
spike bulls through the hunting seasons has typically been
low. High road density is likely contributing to elk
vulnerability during damage and regular hunting seasons.
A change in regulation (True-spike) is being tried in an
attempt to increase bull escapement.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/09trend.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/game/status/09trend.pdf)
Scroll down to page 79
Post by: WDFW-SUX on March 12, 2010, 04:02:58 PM
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2010, 05:26:23 PM
Since 2002 the branch bull population has dropped by 78%. In 2002 there were 391 branch bulls in the Colockum. There are currently only 85 left. Basically 11% drop a year. So by about 2014 there will not be a breeding population of elk in the Colockum. Thank you WDFW.
Post by: colockumelk on March 12, 2010, 05:30:34 PM
The 78% drop in branch bulls since 2002 is literally not an exageration. You are looking at a herd that has a branch bull to cow ratio of 2.83:100. The reason is simple. On average only 18% of spikes live to become branch bulls. Mix in poachers, Indians and natural causes of death and you can see why the Colockum elk herd will cease to have a breeding population by 2014.
Post by: 6x6in6 on March 14, 2010, 01:24:40 AM
I do truly hope that some form of proper management does evolve for the sake of preserving the resource for years to come in this state. That ball is in the WDFW's court. Until they learn how to care for and manage the resource and not be so concerned that it's just a revenue generating tool this states game will suffer and we will too.
I'm not so certain that either taking certain GMU's or dedicating certain PMU's as either OTC or draw would work so well. We just flat have too many people that want to hunt and therefore the OTC units would be a forest of orange.
Realistically, I do beleive that going draw on the entire eastside would be best. Including the NE. If I were still a die hard had to take 9 days and hunt Eastern Washington every year person, I'd find my way up to wandering around the 49DN. Hell yes! It's elk hunting season and I have to go.
I'll still support this state with my license and tag buys as a resident eventhough I disagree an awful lot with how they conduct the business of game management. I will guarentee you though that when I do pull my bull tag, and if this state has not made some form of forward steps towards properly manageing this resource of ours, I will not waste money any longer here! Yes, they have me fish on until that time. :(
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on March 14, 2010, 10:27:58 AM
The second thing to do is look at a map at all those roads that go into every little ravine and gully. If you look at a map of the Colockum there's connecting roads and spur roads everywhere. The road accesss is ridiculous. So the next thing would be to close alot of those spur roads. The main roads and a few of the connecting roads should stay open but close off all those spurs and the ones that lead nowhere.
You cut down road accesss you cut down on both types of poaching. You will also give the elk and deer something which they currently do not have; a place to escape to. 80% of the spikes get smoked every year because with an ATV and a spotting scope there isn't a place to hide. We need to give them some places to escape to. It's pretty simple really.
I know, I know God forbid we make guys walk anymore. I wonder how my 80 year old grand-father was able to hunt elk. Oh yeah he used his feet.
I don't have a problem with anything you said in this or the previous post CE. Some of those spur roads have been blocked already (some just by vegetation). I still say that there is too much cover removal going on thanks to the DNR. One thing I have noticed is that just as the hunter safety must be given in Spanish- those signs should also be bi-lingual, since in all cases I have experienced up there....the driver could not read english(or could they?)
One other thing...I hunt with a disabled hunter. Can't use thier feet...tragicly only 49 Y/O
Post by: colockumelk on March 16, 2010, 04:58:49 PM
We all know what the definition of insanity is right? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If people think that things will get better they are either stupid or very very naive. This herd has gone down hill for the past 20 years. And especially the last 8 it has just plummeted. Something needs to be done.
I'll ask this. Does anyone have ANY BETTER IEDEAS of what to do??? If so let me know. I'd love to hear them.
Elkdawg I'm sorry to hear about your friends. IMHO instead of letting able bodied men shoot cows in the hayfields or nearby they should let disabled and kids shoot them. But we shouldn't not close down roads because of the disabled when it has a dramatic impact on the health of our elk herds.