Post by: colockumelk on November 10, 2010, 03:51:26 PM
His idea is that some places like Britich Columbia have antler restrictions on their bulls. Which is 5pt minimum or 6pt minimum. to manage their harvest numbers on their bulls. I wont go into why I thought it was dumb because its not important. I will say that Buck Rub has a pretty decent philosophy. Here's why I think it could work and why it can't work. I would then like people to brainstorm and just say what you think. I'm neither for or against it. Just saying that I'm open to new ideas and the whole purpose of this forum is to debate stuff like this. Ill give what I think is the NEUTRAL, the NEGATIVE and the POSITIVE parts of this plan.
NEUTRAL: Probably about the same amount of bulls would be harvested under this plan as today. Only instead of us harvesting them as "True Spikes" they would be harvested as mature 5pts or 6pts.
NEGATIVE: Because of high road densities and the openess of the terrain it is doubtfull that there would be many trophy bulls in that unit. A 300" bull would probably be a HUGE bull there. Because the high harvest rates of "True Spikes" would most likely transfer over to a high harvest rate of mature bulls. Also unless the entire East Side went to 5pt or 6pt minimum the Colockum would have WAY too many hunters in it. But then again why not have the whole west side other than a few units go to 5pt or 6pt minimum :)
POSITIVE: The positive thing is that there would likely be more bulls under this system than there is now. Plus people would have a better quality of a hunt going after MATURE bull elk rather than baby spikes.
Post by: 270Shooter on November 10, 2010, 04:00:40 PM
Post by: vandeman17 on November 10, 2010, 04:03:53 PM
Would work if the population of WA was like montana. Just too many people IMO, Many of the mature bulls will be killed. I think permit only is better.
I second this. Permit only for a while to get the ratios and numbers closer to where they should be.
Post by: chester on November 10, 2010, 04:08:20 PM
Post by: bigpaw 77 on November 10, 2010, 04:14:42 PM
Post by: alanger on November 10, 2010, 04:27:18 PM
Im gunna keep my thoughts simple :chuckle: for now
Post by: 270Shooter on November 10, 2010, 04:52:03 PM
Post by: elkbuster on November 10, 2010, 06:11:45 PM
Explain to me how changing to 3 pt or even 5 pt minimums would help our herds reach that goal? :dunno:
Post by: Fullabull on November 10, 2010, 06:19:54 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on November 10, 2010, 06:25:13 PM
Post by: YoterHunter on November 10, 2010, 06:25:54 PM
Post by: EDT on November 10, 2010, 06:40:26 PM
Post by: pwdr-brnr on November 10, 2010, 06:44:35 PM
Post by: elkbuster on November 10, 2010, 06:58:59 PM
Post by: bankwalker on November 10, 2010, 07:15:51 PM
if we are killing spikes every year none of them will grow up to be bulls, sure a few make it through every year but that doesnt get the job done obviously. why not give 5pt min a shot for 5-10 years and see how much worse/better it gets? not like anything the wdfw is doing now is working on the eastside. the more spikes living on to become branched bulls the better, and it doesnt take very long for a bull to reach a 5pt.
look how many branched bulls there are on the westside. i myself do not hunt the westside for elk. but i do hunt deer in areas where there are alot of elk. and i havent seen a lack in branched bulls thats forsure.
no science was used in my thoughts :chuckle: just simple observation
Post by: Lowedog on November 10, 2010, 07:17:54 PM
I think having to count to 5 or 6 would be too tough for a lot of people. :chuckle:
Post by: bankwalker on November 10, 2010, 07:19:49 PM
Another vote for permit only elk!
I think having to count to 5 or 6 would be too tough for a lot of people. :chuckle:
its hard enough for people to count what comes after spike.....lol
Post by: runamuk on November 10, 2010, 07:41:19 PM
And gate the roads ..... make it harder on hunters and easier on elk :dunno:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on November 10, 2010, 07:45:44 PM
OK. How about only allowing those with an eastern wa. physical address purchase east side elk tags. Let the west siders hunt the west side and let the east siders hunt the east side. :twocents: This would cut way back on the amount of hunters in the east side elk areas, alleviate the hunting pressure on the elk and make more elk hunters successful while increasing east side herds. Then, make a few of the units on the east side 6 pt or greater. I think I will run for Game commissioner!!! :IBCOOL:
Then we can keep our tag monies and then the east keeps there!
Post by: sparkey579 on November 10, 2010, 07:52:41 PM
Post by: Thenewguy on November 10, 2010, 07:58:12 PM
OK. How about only allowing those with an eastern wa. physical address purchase east side elk tags. Let the west siders hunt the west side and let the east siders hunt the east side. :twocents: This would cut way back on the amount of hunters in the east side elk areas, alleviate the hunting pressure on the elk and make more elk hunters successful while increasing east side herds. Then, make a few of the units on the east side 6 pt or greater. I think I will run for Game commissioner!!! :IBCOOL:
what an argument...
Post by: GoldTip on November 10, 2010, 08:04:23 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 10, 2010, 08:15:11 PM
Post by: EDT on November 10, 2010, 08:16:50 PM
OK. How about only allowing those with an eastern wa. physical address purchase east side elk tags. Let the west siders hunt the west side and let the east siders hunt the east side. :twocents: This would cut way back on the amount of hunters in the east side elk areas, alleviate the hunting pressure on the elk and make more elk hunters successful while increasing east side herds. Then, make a few of the units on the east side 6 pt or greater. I think I will run for Game commissioner!!! :IBCOOL:
Well, if you do that, we might as well go one further...only Yakima county residents hunt in Yakima County...and so on. :chuckle:
Post by: GoldTip on November 10, 2010, 08:23:44 PM
They have the 3 point minimum on mule deer because hunters want it. They wanted to do away with it a few years ago but their polls showed the public wanted to keep it so they did. Spike only for mule deer would probably work just the same as it does for elk. Not that I'm a fan of it. If deer or elk harvest needs to be brought down I think permit only hunting is the way to do it. For the Colockum, with the indian problem, the only solution I see there is to make it permit only, for any bull, and then put up lots of gates to make it harder for the indians to slaughter everything before our hunts start. I think the whole state should be permit only for both deer and elk, but I'd like to see generous numbers of permits in the majority of GMU's so that the trophy potential doesn't get to be so good that the indians end up going in there and killing all the bucks and bulls, like they always do.
That explains why it is the way it is, 3pt minimum for Mule deer, but it still makes no sense from a management/scientific perspective.
Post by: bobcat on November 10, 2010, 08:31:33 PM
Post by: bigpaw 77 on November 10, 2010, 09:04:40 PM
OK. How about only allowing those with an eastern wa. physical address purchase east side elk tags. Let the west siders hunt the west side and let the east siders hunt the east side. :twocents: This would cut way back on the amount of hunters in the east side elk areas, alleviate the hunting pressure on the elk and make more elk hunters successful while increasing east side herds. Then, make a few of the units on the east side 6 pt or greater. I think I will run for Game commissioner!!! :IBCOOL:You got my vote commish. :brew:
Post by: shedcrazy on November 10, 2010, 09:07:14 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 10, 2010, 09:19:03 PM
Post by: EDT on November 10, 2010, 09:23:20 PM
thats the problem with this state, waaay too many people and they try to micro manage 1 tiny little area and it gets hammered, not enough terrrain and habitat to support most ideas
Well said huntnnw
Post by: fremont on November 10, 2010, 09:26:14 PM
PERMIT ONLY, ANY BULL
Post by: boonerboy on November 10, 2010, 09:44:33 PM
I have written virtually these exact words on this forum/site several times and NO ONE has been able to answer my question. To those who think that going to a 5pt restriction on elk is a bad idea, please answer me this question. If going to 5pt minimum on bull elk would be so bad, why is it good to have a 3 pt restriction on Mule deer and everyone seems to think this creates bigger bucks. Mule deer and Bull elk breed in much the same way. The biggest/strongest/most mature buck/bull gathers a harem of does/cows and then he breeds them all, while fighting off several satellite bucks/bulls. So someone, anyone please explain to me why it is better to have us kill off as many young bulls as possible, yet we only are allowed to kill the more mature mulie bucks? One or the other approach is wrong, just isn't any two ways around it. :twocents:the clockum elk herd gets way too much pressure. If opened up for mature bulls it would draw even more people and they would be slaughtered. There really isn't an area that I can think of where this would be true for deer. I agree with you that the spike only has the same affect on the same gene pool. I would be all for permit only,it would suck not to hunt every year but it is the best solution.
Post by: vtec on November 10, 2010, 10:37:16 PM
Post by: Viszla on November 11, 2010, 07:27:01 AM
Post by: Buckrub on November 11, 2010, 07:32:36 AM
Since the state will never go permit only due to revenue and everybody understands the spike only is a PROVEN management failure system.
Instead of hunting spike general season everybody is hunting 5 point or better general season.... I would bet less bulls were harvested!.
Some questions I have
Do we think for a second that incidental kill doesn't happen on spike only?
Why is the permit only bull still in the 30 - 40% harvest ratio?
Why would one think a wiser mature bull would not survive general season when a dumb spike somehow survives?
Can't we block some targeted roads for animal security and leave motorized access available?
Why does the general season joe hunt scraps while the state auctions and caters to the rich?
How do other states manage by antler restriction successfully in limited cover ground?
We have a economically viable renewable resource that properly managed could provide opportunity for all not just the few.
Post by: CoachNemo on November 11, 2010, 08:03:33 AM
You purchase your tag for a bull elk, if you tag a bull that season the following season you can only tag out on a cow or choose not to purchase a tag at all. No bull the previous year, you can get another bull tag. It may hurt some revenue (hunters who only want bulls), but it could help the overall elk population. Some hunters may just buy tags every other year and that's OK for the good of the population.
Thoughts?
Post by: elkbuster on November 11, 2010, 10:28:01 AM
OK. How about only allowing those with an eastern wa. physical address purchase east side elk tags. Let the west siders hunt the west side and let the east siders hunt the east side. :twocents: This would cut way back on the amount of hunters in the east side elk areas, alleviate the hunting pressure on the elk and make more elk hunters successful while increasing east side herds. Then, make a few of the units on the east side 6 pt or greater. I think I will run for Game commissioner!!! :IBCOOL:
Well, if you do that, we might as well go one further...only Yakima county residents hunt in Yakima County...and so on. :chuckle:
.......or, purchase a tag for a unit, bull only, and allow hunters to choose 2 units per season only and limit the amount of tags sold in those units if you have a more popular unit. You cannot hunt the same unit in consecutive years. I am just throwing out ideas to lower the hunting pressure that is the main cause of discontent for many hunters that I read about on a lot of threads on this site.
today
Post by: GoldTip on November 11, 2010, 11:07:51 AM
Post by: chester on November 11, 2010, 11:16:39 AM
It would not bother me at all to go to hunting elk every other year and pay a bit more for a better quality experience.
Then why don't you just save up, and go out of state?
Goldtip....your plan made great sense. up until you said raise prices. they are too high already. we are residents in this state and should not pay out of state prices. if they doubled it i couldnt afford it. i can barely afford it now. and i hunt very close to home.
Post by: C-Money on November 11, 2010, 11:30:39 AM
Post by: GoldTip on November 11, 2010, 12:04:59 PM
It would not bother me at all to go to hunting elk every other year and pay a bit more for a better quality experience.
Then why don't you just save up, and go out of state?
Goldtip....your plan made great sense. up until you said raise prices. they are too high already. we are residents in this state and should not pay out of state prices. if they doubled it i couldnt afford it. i can barely afford it now. and i hunt very close to home.
The answer to number one is , I do go out of state. Every year and most years go to 2 other states. But would also like to have a quality experience with an opportunity to take a bull wihout being over run with hunters here in this state.
The answer to number 2 is that most spend more than the cost of doubling the price of an elk tag on a half a tank of gas to simply even go hunting. The current cost of an elk tag alone is $43 for a resident. Are you honestly telling me if the price was twice that for the opportunity to hunt any bull with a brow tine in any unit east side/west side tag with only half the number of people in the woods with you that you would simply quit hunting elk if the tag cost $86?
Post by: chester on November 11, 2010, 12:36:26 PM
The answer to number one is , I do go out of state. Every year and most years go to 2 other states. But would also like to have a quality experience with an opportunity to take a bull wihout being over run with hunters here in this state.
The answer to number 2 is that most spend more than the cost of doubling the price of an elk tag on a half a tank of gas to simply even go hunting. The current cost of an elk tag alone is $43 for a resident. Are you honestly telling me if the price was twice that for the opportunity to hunt any bull with a brow tine in any unit east side/west side tag with only half the number of people in the woods with you that you would simply quit hunting elk if the tag cost $86?
[/quote]
Honestly. I think i would be forced to. if i didnt make hunting a priority i wouldnt have gone this year. sure some people can afford deisels and 5th wheels. and to buy out of state licenses. I cant. and i know many others who cant. if i go east im on a friends couch. to hunt elk im at my parents. Im laid off for the 3rd winter in a row. $43 is about what it cost me in my truck for a week of elk hunting. You sound like you want to make this a rich mans sport? what isnt much to you, is alot of money to some of us. elk alone is $45.70 btw.i still have the reciept. if you want what you call "quality" go where it is. I like having the chance at a bull without paying for travel, outfitter, 1k for outta state license and tag. I sepend time learning the elk i hunt, where they live and how they respond to pressure. if you want to limit people go permit only. dont raise the price so only those who are well off can afford to hunt. when i went to arizona for school i drew a tag. total cost as a resident? $25.50. I dont think you would say they dont offer "quality" hunts. making it so people who make under $30k a year cant hunt isnt gonna fix anything.the ones with money are the ones who dont leave camp or ride quads because they can afford such things. I park the truck and walk.saves gas :twocents:
Post by: GoldTip on November 11, 2010, 01:23:22 PM
The answer to number one is , I do go out of state. Every year and most years go to 2 other states. But would also like to have a quality experience with an opportunity to take a bull wihout being over run with hunters here in this state.
The answer to number 2 is that most spend more than the cost of doubling the price of an elk tag on a half a tank of gas to simply even go hunting. The current cost of an elk tag alone is $43 for a resident. Are you honestly telling me if the price was twice that for the opportunity to hunt any bull with a brow tine in any unit east side/west side tag with only half the number of people in the woods with you that you would simply quit hunting elk if the tag cost $86?
Honestly. I think i would be forced to. if i didnt make hunting a priority i wouldnt have gone this year. sure some people can afford deisels and 5th wheels. and to buy out of state licenses. I cant. and i know many others who cant. if i go east im on a friends couch. to hunt elk im at my parents. Im laid off for the 3rd winter in a row. $43 is about what it cost me in my truck for a week of elk hunting. You sound like you want to make this a rich mans sport? what isnt much to you, is alot of money to some of us. elk alone is $45.70 btw.i still have the reciept. if you want what you call "quality" go where it is. I like having the chance at a bull without paying for travel, outfitter, 1k for outta state license and tag. I sepend time learning the elk i hunt, where they live and how they respond to pressure. if you want to limit people go permit only. dont raise the price so only those who are well off can afford to hunt. when i went to arizona for school i drew a tag. total cost as a resident? $25.50. I dont think you would say they dont offer "quality" hunts. making it so people who make under $30k a year cant hunt isnt gonna fix anything.the ones with money are the ones who dont leave camp or ride quads because they can afford such things. I park the truck and walk.saves gas :twocents:
[/quote]
Well if you paid 45.70 for your elk tag then your were charged a 2.50 fee for wherever you bought it as I just checked the wdfw website again and the elk tag is listed at 43.20. Also, I don't think that someone who loves to hunt whether they make $30k or 300K is probably going to stop hunting when the elk tag doubles in price. If that would force you out, well that is very unfortunate, but I'm here to tell you that the cost of those licenses are gonna be double in price long before yours or mine's wages are going to double, so you may either want to make some different choices with your money or start looking for a cheaper sport. At 91.40 for an elk tag (double the price you paid for your tag) it would still be the cheapest thing you could possibly do in this state or any state for an entire week, and the experience would be greater with less hunters, there would be more good bulls harvested as well as the younger bulls having a chance to grow up. Heck as noted in another thread, take a look at skiing and see what it would cost for a week.
Trust me, the last thing I want to do is make this a rich mans sport, I want the experience in this state, with this states population of hunters and this states population of game, to be better for everyone. The only way to accomplish that and still give good opportunity as well as not cut the moneys to the F&G would be to increase the cost of the tag. That or we can continue to bellyache about the current number of hunters, the lack of animals, the over crowding at popular spots just like we do now.
Post by: chester on November 11, 2010, 01:36:50 PM
Post by: GoldTip on November 11, 2010, 02:02:46 PM
Like i said before, i figured out how to use pressure to an advantage. But i just noticed on another thread there will be an increase as of next year. As things look with the economy and myself looking to find another job. and if i find one who knows if it will last? seems like my elk hunting career lasted 15yrs and has another 5days in it. you keep saying fewer hunters? thats making it a rich mans sport so only a few can afford it. i thought we were trying to grow the sport? not push people out of it? the wdfw will piss money away no matter how much you give them. if you take money away maybe they will spend wiser. as far as decisions with my money? well i was unexpectedly laid off with about 60% of the employees where i worked. without warning we were let go last month. not much i can do about that. wasnt my call. and ive been looking for a new job since. i bought my tags before that. and im trying my hardest to fill it. the extra meat will go a long way. sorry to hear that you are against this. i figured hunting should be open to all who enjoy it. not just those who have some saved in reserve and want bigger antlers. for me ill shoot the unlucky bull who crosses my path and had the misfortune of growing browtines and forking above his ear. good luck to you on your hunts. ill have to do some serious thinking about next year. hope you can pull that 350" or whatever bull you want at the expense of other sportsmen.
Your absolutely right and I'm not entirely sure how you spotted it so well, you are incredibly astute. I am a fat cat hunter who makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I truly have no idea how to hunt because I make so much money and I would prefer if all the poor people would simply quit hunting so that they would not get in the way of my diesel truck pulling my toyhouler loaded with four wheelers. I would like the woods completely to myself so that anyone who is poor or has been laid off simply has no chance at all to feed their family. I just wish the danged fish and game would pave the roads into the places where I unload my quads to hunt, I truly am tired of having to pay someone to wash my truck and trailer when I get home. I hope to only ever kill huge animals which I waste because they taste awful and hang the horns around my house. I do generally invite other rich people over to the house though so that they can compliment me on what a great hunter I must be. Your good, you picked me right out.
Post by: chester on November 11, 2010, 02:10:25 PM
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on November 11, 2010, 02:22:17 PM
Post by: colockumelk on November 11, 2010, 02:35:56 PM
Post by: GoldTip on November 11, 2010, 02:50:00 PM
Goldtip. i just re read that. yea it came off that way. and no i dont think that of you i have read alot of your posts on here.and overall think your a pretty good guy. Im just saying raising the prices isnt going to do any good. If i could afford it. id buy land, plant food plots and have my own little slice. but its just not the case. Main point is if we give more money to the wdfw you lose hunters,makes it harder for people coming into the sport and the wdfw will raise them again. no matter how much you give them they are still going to piss it away. Its already costing several times what it did when i started. and im not seeing how increasing license fees will make things better?seems like the negatives out weigh the positives by a long shot.
Well I am glad you don't think that of me, there may be others here that do but I don't care to be honest. Although I will admit that I do have a diesel truck and a toyhouler and quads. This year when we went down to the Dayton unit we took one quad. It never got started just rolled out the ramp and parked. Then it did get started when we left empty handed 5 days later to get it back on the trailer while we burned boot leather the rest of the time trying to avoid the orange hordes.
I think we probably feel the same way about hunting, we both want a chance to do it. Maybe I'm a little older than you, (maybe not) you've learned to use the tons of hunters to your advantage, me I just don't want to see tons of hunters. I go to Montana and Idaho most years not because I kill huge animals, but because I can hunt all day without sometimes seeing another hunter and that's the experience I want as much as just an opportunity. I've killed some nice animals in those states, but most were when I was growing up there in Montana or because I still have tons of family there. I guess we will have to disagree in that I think a reduced number of hunters during each season would produce a better hunting experience and help bring in more hunters, as I believe there are more leaving the sport due to over crowding than due to price. Although I can see your point as well.
And yes everyone I know Bone addict goes places and never see's other hunters, but he's half bigfoot with a camera for eyeballs. I just can't hang with him...... :chuckle:
Post by: chester on November 11, 2010, 02:57:34 PM
Post by: runamuk on November 11, 2010, 04:55:33 PM
I agree with Runamuk, She makes a good point! I would like to see a 5pt min. I still frown on locking up gates on roads. Patrole the roads and enforce laws on the books, but dont lock me out of public land, I have done nothing wrong.
you dont have to lock all the gates just some of them...those areas create an escapement for the elk and deer but can still be hunted on foot......or with horses or bicycles .....you aren't being locked out, you simply cannot drive to every corner. They do that all over over here just certain roads that the gates are closed for winter for elk....you still can hunt it...well except when some brilliant genius decides the week of elk season is the week to log :bash: :bash: and the logging operation going on means zero access even on foot in an elk area set aside for the elk.....thanks bunches whoever had that brilliant idea
Post by: bobcat on November 11, 2010, 05:52:00 PM
Post by: stickslinger on November 11, 2010, 06:14:24 PM
Post by: fremont on November 11, 2010, 08:37:45 PM
EXAMPLE
Today: 3,000 hunters pay $50 per license = $150,000 revenue
Future: 3,000 hunters pay $10 each for permit chance: $30,000
1,000 successful hunters pay $150 each for permit: $150,000
Future total: $180,000
Post by: thomasmx on November 11, 2010, 08:41:28 PM
Elk in east WA will never go to permit only because the WDFW loves the money they get from spike tags :hello:
I know and its such b.s. because there are such nice bulls up there!
Post by: Buckrub on November 12, 2010, 08:01:25 AM
This coming from hunters who think the "Quality Bull Permits" actually improved chances of drawing a bull tag....Laughable :o
The state doesn't give a rip about the hunters just the money... in an effort to sell permits they dangle the few good bulls there for all to see while hunting spikes.
If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.
General season antler restriction ...LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE... If a spike can escape a mature bull has a better chance of escapement.
You want a "quality bull permit" give permits for the rut.
Hunters are always looking out for themselves when they should be looking out for the welfare of the herds and the future of the HUNTERS.
When does common sense prevail? Call like I see it.
Post by: bobcat on November 12, 2010, 08:17:17 AM
If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.
How do you figure that? It seems to me it would be more like every other year or every third year. Of course it would depend on which particular permit you were applying for. Some would take longer than others. If the number of elk permits allocated was 50% of the number of tags they now sell, I would think that on average a person would be hunting elk every other year.
Why is it that states such as Oregon can have permit only elk hunting and it works just fine, but people say it won't work here?
Post by: Lowedog on November 12, 2010, 08:21:08 AM
By the comments I can tell there will never be a consensus by hunters.
This coming from hunters who think the "Quality Bull Permits" actually improved chances of drawing a bull tag....Laughable :o
The state doesn't give a rip about the hunters just the money... in an effort to sell permits they dangle the few good bulls there for all to see while hunting spikes.
If you advocate permit only then you will be hunting elk every 10 YEARS! with a 30 - 40% harvest ratio. You will lose hunters and your voice.
General season antler restriction ...LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE... If a spike can escape a mature bull has a better chance of escapement.
You want a "quality bull permit" give permits for the rut.
Hunters are always looking out for themselves when they should be looking out for the welfare of the herds and the future of the HUNTERS.
When does common sense prevail? Call like I see it.
What's laughable is those that refuse to give up the guarantee of a general season elk hunt every year so they can go to elk camp and party with their buddies every year.
Permit only is the best answer to provide quality bulls to hunt in good numbers. I don't think a person will have to wait 10yrs to draw. Even if it was every 5 years I would be happy with that. I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag. I don't hunt for spikes or cows so having a chance at any bull every few years would be just fine with me.
Post by: Buckrub on November 12, 2010, 09:36:58 AM
[/quote]
What's laughable is those that refuse to give up the guarantee of a general season elk hunt every year so they can go to elk camp and party with their buddies every year.
Permit only is the best answer to provide quality bulls to hunt in good numbers. I don't think a person will have to wait 10yrs to draw. Even if it was every 5 years I would be happy with that. I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag. I don't hunt for spikes or cows so having a chance at any bull every few years would be just fine with me.
[/quote]
It's not the hunter who refuses to give up the guarantee of general season elk... it's the game dept. that is unwilling to give up general season hunters based on money.
"I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag"
17 years without elk hunting...my point exactly.
What makes one think they would get a permit every couple of years? Change the whole state or change the small area left that isn't antler restriction
Post by: Buckrub on November 12, 2010, 09:44:56 AM
Good question... Do you trust this state would manage like Oregon? have you hunted Oregon? Thousands of permits...similar to a general season.
Most hunters want a permit only to ensure a quality bull.... won't happen.. the rich and the tribes are getting the quality bull and the scrappers are hunting spikes with a slim chance of ever hunting a bull.
Post by: bobcat on November 12, 2010, 09:54:13 AM
Post by: Curly on November 12, 2010, 10:04:14 AM
NEUTRAL: Probably about the same amount of bulls would be harvested under this plan as today. Only instead of us harvesting them as "True Spikes" they would be harvested as mature 5pts or 6pts.
NEGATIVE: Because of high road densities and the openess of the terrain it is doubtful that there would be many trophy bulls in that unit. A 300" bull would probably be a HUGE bull there. Because the high harvest rates of "True Spikes" would most likely transfer over to a high harvest rate of mature bulls. Also unless the entire East Side went to 5pt or 6pt minimum the Colockum would have WAY too many hunters in it. But then again why not have the whole west side other than a few units go to 5pt or 6pt minimum :)
POSITIVE: The positive thing is that there would likely be more bulls under this system than there is now. Plus people would have a better quality of a hunt going after MATURE bull elk rather than baby spikes.
I think you need to add the neutral one to the negative column. You need the mature bulls for breeding, not less. If it is true that the same amount of bulls would be harvested under a 5pt min as under the true spike rules, then wouldn't it mean that there will be fewer bulls left for breeding?
How long can the herd survive with most of the breeding bulls being taken out. :dunno:
I think the best option is for permit only for that GMU and maybe all of Eastern WA.
Post by: Buckrub on November 12, 2010, 10:19:01 AM
I have spoken with the Dept. many times and they are unwilling to make a change based on revenue... and that means "no management period".
I would be in total agreement to an actual permit system that made sense.
Many hunters see the permits as a easy way to kill a big bull without the effort, regardless of the thousands of hunters who just want a chance to hunt and get away from the stress of life.
Ask yourself if you want a "quality hunt" or "quality animal" and how to achieve both without disregarding others hunters.
I opt for the quality hunt first with opportunity for quality animal IF I work harder and smarter than the average hunter, most good hunters now how to use hunting pressure to their advantage.
If we agree the spike only management doesn't work and the state is unwilling to go permit only or eliminate general season why shouldn't we be hunting antler restriction?... less permits sold? Not rocket science.
Post by: colockumelk on November 12, 2010, 08:11:00 PM
When I was writing my paper the WDFW told me that if the Colockum went permit only they would give out 1000 permits!!! That's just the colockum. If the Yakima GMUs went permit o ly you could add another 2-3000 permits as well. They also said these numbers were based on a 40% success rate and the permit numbers would likely increase every year. FYI the state with the highest success rate is Wyoming with 30%. Most states are 15-25%
So if it went to permit only you'd get to hunt every other year or so for any bull. Then if you add in the cow permits it would most likely be you'd get to hunt 2 out of 3 years.
Post by: EDT on November 12, 2010, 08:13:17 PM
Post by: chester on November 12, 2010, 08:19:14 PM
Or go 3pt min statewide.
just for the sake of simplifying things for the average hunter.
They seem to try and do alot of micromanaging that makes the problem worse for the most part.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 12, 2010, 08:30:39 PM
Does anyone here remember when elk season started on Sundays? or Mondays? I could live with that. Hell we did it for years! we could also shorten the seasons to like start on Sunday or Monday and end on Saturday.
Post by: fremont on November 12, 2010, 09:00:09 PM
What's laughable is those that refuse to give up the guarantee of a general season elk hunt every year so they can go to elk camp and party with their buddies every year.+1 Well said.
Permit only is the best answer to provide quality bulls to hunt in good numbers. I don't think a person will have to wait 10yrs to draw. Even if it was every 5 years I would be happy with that. I haven't really hunted elk since 1994 because that is the last time I drew an any bull tag. I don't hunt for spikes or cows so having a chance at any bull every few years would be just fine with me.
Post by: colockumelk on November 13, 2010, 05:09:57 AM
And here's another thing to think about on this . If they gave out 1000 permits, what would would be the group size limit? I could live with the permit thing. But let's make it even a little more different. Even W/O permit they'd have a better chance of survival. But we NEED the tribe thing to end
Does anyone here remember when elk season started on Sundays? or Mondays? I could live with that. Hell we did it for years! we could also shorten the seasons to like start on Sunday or Monday and end on Saturday.
Excellant points. Also one thing to remember is if an area goes permit only the state has WAY WAY WAY more leverage in controlling the tribes.
Post by: Buckrub on November 13, 2010, 07:36:02 AM
1000+ permits for any bull?? then there will be no herd...1000 permits with antler restriction? might as well be a general season.
Control the tribes? cmon...really? put out a 1000 permits for the clockum and the tribes will slaughter or be in court stopping you.
Post by: colockumelk on November 13, 2010, 11:02:28 AM
And the Boost decision says the state can regulated tribal harvest in the name of conservation. Permit only fits that description.
If they wont do permit only I'd like to see it go 5 pt minimum since spike only doesn't work. AND...... IF HE WDFW ISNT GONNA PROPERLY MANAGE THE COLOCKUM AND...... is obvious that the only people that they are gonna allow to harvest branch bulls are the Yakamas then F$#& it we might as well kill 5 pt and 6 PTs instead of spikes and let us have quality hunting instead of the pathetic "hunting" we currently have. WE NEED TO EXPECT MORE FROM THE WDFW!!!
Post by: alanger on December 07, 2010, 04:35:50 PM
Id like to see them do one of two things. If they go permit only, make it statewide any bull
Or go 3pt min statewide.
just for the sake of simplifying things for the average hunter.
They seem to try and do alot of micromanaging that makes the problem worse for the most part.
That still doesnt help the fact with too many cows to bull ratio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats the whole F**** up part about the naneum unit!!!!!!!! and quilomene, theres too many cows to bulls, a high percentage of these cows arent getting bred, so its now helping the herd having all these extra cows, They need to put out like 20 cow permits for naneum to cut back on some jar heads
Post by: deleted BGS on December 07, 2010, 04:50:49 PM
Post by: GreggHunts2hard4u on December 07, 2010, 05:00:38 PM
Post by: greenhead_killer on December 07, 2010, 05:33:19 PM
Post by: jstone on December 07, 2010, 05:46:57 PM
Post by: GreggHunts2hard4u on December 07, 2010, 05:51:32 PM
Post by: alanger on December 07, 2010, 06:38:19 PM
even if it was "5pt Min" an the bull to cow ratio got way better. the indians would have an even better shooting gallery of bulls to shoot at. and they take enough big breeding bulls to destroy the herd already. it NEEDS to be "permit only" for a few years so the breeding bulls can get their f*** on and rebuild the herd to what it used to be before all this bull ishhh. even cow permit only would make a big difference. something needs to change and no one can seem to put their finger on what it is. its depressing. my grandpa hunted colockum for 60yrs b4 he passed and my dad has hunted for 40+ and i have been hunting it for 16yrs (im 24). never would i have thought it would have came down to "true spike only" hell even "spike only". idk yall but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they closed the colockum for a few years to better the herd. im a young hunter and want to be able to take my kids up there to hunt one day in the future.
ok we all know the indians shoot bulls, but you cant drag your nuts on it forever!!!!!!!!!! thats not going to get us anywhere with replenishing the herd!!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: jstone on December 07, 2010, 06:40:01 PM
Post by: GreggHunts2hard4u on December 07, 2010, 06:57:50 PM
Post by: jstone on December 07, 2010, 07:05:28 PM
Post by: GreggHunts2hard4u on December 07, 2010, 07:11:46 PM
Post by: colockumelk on December 08, 2010, 11:00:20 AM
Here is the best plan of action. I could write a short 2 minute paper highlighting the need for permit only and road closures. Then at the WDFW public input meetings everybody needs to go and schedule their 2 minute slot and read the paper. If they go to meetings all over the state and difwrent groups of people send the same message things will change. It worked for the bowhunters in GMU 101.
Post by: bobcat on December 08, 2010, 11:08:58 AM
everybody needs to go and schedule their 2 minute slot and read the paper
Actually I believe the DFW is much more generous on the time limit- they give you a whole THREE minutes to talk. :o
How nice of them huh? :rolleyes:
Post by: greenhead_killer on December 12, 2010, 05:58:41 PM
Post by: deerslyr on December 12, 2010, 09:14:15 PM
Post by: rock on December 13, 2010, 12:32:46 PM
Post by: C-Money on December 14, 2010, 02:35:19 PM
Post by: elkbuster on December 14, 2010, 09:50:00 PM
Colockum, are these road closures going to be year round? I found new gates and road closeures up their this last summer.
I surely hope so. If they are not, the NA will harass the 7734 out of them
Post by: sharpeshooter on December 15, 2010, 04:11:04 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 16, 2010, 04:44:52 AM
I was a kid when the temporary spike only rule was enforced...now I'm fifty.
Shut it down and go to another state to hunt....its been over for years you just didn't know it.
There is no herd management just revenue management... my :twocents:
Post by: ASHQUACK on December 16, 2010, 05:36:28 AM
:yeah:
I was a kid when the temporary spike only rule was enforced...now I'm fifty.
Shut it down and go to another state to hunt....its been over for years you just didn't know it.
There is no herd management just revenue management... my :twocents:
Man did you ever hit the nail on the head with this statement!
Post by: colockumelk on December 16, 2010, 12:50:48 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 16, 2010, 07:29:27 PM
Well the state reserve the right to control tribal harvest in the name of conservation. If it goes permit only that's conservation. Hence why the state controls ram and goat had est for the tribes.
Isn't the spike only, permit bull for conservation?
Check the out of state bear tags sold? Why would out of state hunters come to a state which can't be baited??? Some tribal hunters will sell any species as long as the white man hunter has a bear tag and $$$$$.
I know its happening and so does the state but can't and won't do anything about it.
One would be better off proving "WE" were all aliens including the natives put on this earth or the neanderthals were here first...LOL
Hunters would be better off to work with the tribes and gain federal power for true management.