Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 08:06:01 PM
Post by: high country on November 17, 2010, 08:10:13 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 17, 2010, 08:11:44 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 17, 2010, 08:12:42 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on November 17, 2010, 08:21:16 PM
Post by: ribka on November 17, 2010, 08:23:23 PM
I always see a lot more animals out-of-state than in WA and knowing that I am farther away from the crazy Dems in King County makes me happy too. :chuckle:
Post by: Hunterman on November 17, 2010, 08:26:03 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 08:27:11 PM
Post by: Wea300mag on November 17, 2010, 08:28:01 PM
Post by: DeerThug on November 17, 2010, 08:29:14 PM
No really. EVERY out of state hunt I have been on turned into a great adventure and ended up being fun and a memory maker. Lay next to your son and watch him wack a 14 inch antelope, or a stud whitetail. Something I highly recommend. Sometimes we shoot big horns sometimes not. Sometimes we get into a pickle, and so far no one has gotten hurt and nothing has been wrecked. We almost always loose or break something, as we tend to actually use our gear. We have also met some great guys that have turned into great hunting buddies. Not to mention the 4 months of continuous big game hunting. The stuff some guys only dream about.
I have not kept track of the diesel I have burned, but I bet I am above the $2000 mark as well.
Post by: HardCorpsHuntr on November 17, 2010, 08:33:48 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on November 17, 2010, 08:35:44 PM
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 08:40:04 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on November 17, 2010, 08:41:28 PM
Post by: Tony 270 on November 17, 2010, 08:42:32 PM
Post by: washelkhntr on November 17, 2010, 08:42:42 PM
Post by: danceswitharrows on November 17, 2010, 08:44:53 PM
Well lets see,,Washington SUCKS as far as wildlife management goes...If you were to go to lets say Montana, you would understand.. In Washington you shoot the first legal deer you see..In Montana,,you literally take your pick on the deer you want..I use to think the same way as you do, untill I got my eyes opened..:yeah:
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 17, 2010, 09:15:12 PM
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 09:15:43 PM
I'm so attached to the areas i hunt here in WA i wouldn't wanna go anywhere else...i might see acouple shooters everyday, but i always know there is that one or two big one that is smarter than all the rest and he got that big for a reason. It's not about how many deer i shoot in a year or how big he is i guess...it's knowing that i HUNTED my kill.
How is shooting a deer out of state considered not a "HUNTED" kill. Just cause there is more opportunity to HUNT for a kill over there? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say there. Am I taking this the wrong way here or what? :dunno:
Post by: bigpaw 77 on November 17, 2010, 09:19:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2010, 09:20:49 PM
I'm so attached to the areas i hunt here in WA i wouldn't wanna go anywhere else...i might see acouple shooters everyday, but i always know there is that one or two big one that is smarter than all the rest and he got that big for a reason. It's not about how many deer i shoot in a year or how big he is i guess...it's knowing that i HUNTED my kill.
How is shooting a deer out of state considered not a "HUNTED" kill. Just cause there is more opportunity to HUNT for a kill over there? I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say there. Am I taking this the wrong way here or what? :dunno:
I think I know what he means by that- it's the fact that if you hunt close to home you can scout your area regularly. On an out of state hunt you're pretty much going into an area blind. Of course unless you hunt the same spot for several years, ever year, and get to know it. I can see where someone might get more satisfaction out of a local hunt where they were able to scout, and hunt, a particular animal.
Post by: halflife65 on November 17, 2010, 09:22:15 PM
Why, if you can figure out a way to afford it and get the time off of work, would you not try to give yourself as many opportunities as possible to go hunting - especially where your chances of seeing a whopper buck are greater? And that DOESN'T mean sitting in your truck and seeing a big buck. Places in Idaho along the Snake and others are extraordinarily physical hunts but you can get a nice buck. I would argue that guys that are doing those types of hunts are earning everything that they harvest.
My hardest elk hunt was in Montana - walked 24 miles one day with 6 of it packing an elk. I thought I was going to die (and the damn elk wasn't even mine). I'd be pretty resentful if someone said that I was going out of state so that I didn't have to hunt hard...
Post by: Machias on November 17, 2010, 09:25:11 PM
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 09:25:38 PM
Post by: Bob33 on November 17, 2010, 09:27:00 PM
EVERY out of state hunt I have been on turned into a great adventure and ended up being fun and a memory maker:yeah:
How can you hunt too much?
Post by: bigpaw 77 on November 17, 2010, 09:27:37 PM
I'm not sure - by giving yourself more opportunities you're not "hunting"? Not sure I get that...Doesn't make sense.One of the hardest hunts I have done was hunting elk in montana, Even though I did not get a elk on that trip it was still fun to explore some new country.
My hardest elk hunt was in Montana - walked 24 miles one day with 6 of it packing an elk. I thought I was going to die (and the damn elk wasn't even mine). I'd be pretty resentful if someone said that I was going out of state so that I didn't have to hunt hard...
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 09:33:21 PM
Never mean that guys that have more opportunties are HUNTING they're kill...i don't want to go somewhere that i can see 20 4pts in a day and still try and find that bigger one..
I don't see the difference in seeing 20 4 points in a day and still looking for a bigger buck, or seeing just a couple "shooter" bucks you mentioned earlier and looking for the "bigger and smarter bucks" that you know are there. Just because a guy is seeing a lot of bucks in a day doesn't mean they aren't HUNTING for their kill, your whole point of view towards this has me baffled. I hunt for blacktails on this brush hole on the west side, and finding one of those "bigger and smarter bucks" is a challenge I take on every year and when I succeed in finding one of those bucks I take great pride in the work I put in scouting and finding that buck. But it's still hunting to me when I go over and see all those bucks out of state because I'm still looking for those "bigger smarter bucks." It's still hunting, just seeing more game is all.
Post by: ridgefire on November 17, 2010, 09:45:51 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 17, 2010, 09:46:10 PM
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 10:00:45 PM
perfect swift; the only WA guy that stays in-state; keep telling yourself it is all good here, less competition out of state for the rest of us
no competition for me...i hunt private land and public land that no one else hunts so i don't really need to find a "less" competitive area? Had an uncle who lived in Enterprise oregon...his driveway was 16 miles long and closest neighbor was 9 miles away. He was a cattleman who had more than 6000 acres of untouched prime hunting land...i never found the need to go hunt it...just driving to the house you'd see tons of elk,deer and bears...it was to simple.
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2010, 10:04:59 PM
perfect swift; the only WA guy that stays in-state; keep telling yourself it is all good here, less competition out of state for the rest of us
no competition for me...i hunt private land and public land that no one else hunts so i don't really need to find a "less" competitive area? Had an uncle who lived in Enterprise oregon...his driveway was 16 miles long and closest neighbor was 9 miles away. He was a cattleman who had more than 6000 acres of untouched prime hunting land...i never found the need to go hunt it...just driving to the house you'd see tons of elk,deer and bears...it was to simple.
Sounds to me like you must not like hunting that much then, Swift. I'd of been hunting Oregon and Washington every year, if I was you.
Post by: muleyguy on November 17, 2010, 10:05:19 PM
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 10:10:44 PM
perfect swift; the only WA guy that stays in-state; keep telling yourself it is all good here, less competition out of state for the rest of us
no competition for me...i hunt private land and public land that no one else hunts so i don't really need to find a "less" competitive area? Had an uncle who lived in Enterprise oregon...his driveway was 16 miles long and closest neighbor was 9 miles away. He was a cattleman who had more than 6000 acres of untouched prime hunting land...i never found the need to go hunt it...just driving to the house you'd see tons of elk,deer and bears...it was to simple.
Sounds to me like you must not like hunting that much then, Swift. I'd of been hunting Oregon and Washington every year, if I was you.
It's just too simple for him..ah the luxury of having private ground to yourself, now that is HUNTING for that big one.
Post by: washelkhntr on November 17, 2010, 10:11:15 PM
Post by: alecvg on November 17, 2010, 10:11:43 PM
You see bigger bucks on general hunts. You can hunt the rut OTC in Montana. You see more deer, which is alot more fun in my book, than seeing a few three points all season here in washington. You apply for a tag in Washington for 15 years, and maybe get drawn, with a chance of getting a 180 buck if you hold out all season. You apply for a tag in Colorado for 2 or 3 years, for a unit with much better hunting and chances at much bigger bucks. You hunt states with quality animals, better managed, and better seasons. I don't see how washington could ever be thought as as better. But to each their own.
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 10:12:20 PM
Muley...i don't need to post pictures of my bucks. The ones that actually matter...aren't even the biggest, there the ones that got away.
:chuckle: I had a feeling that was coming
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 10:12:25 PM
perfect swift; the only WA guy that stays in-state; keep telling yourself it is all good here, less competition out of state for the rest of us
no competition for me...i hunt private land and public land that no one else hunts so i don't really need to find a "less" competitive area? Had an uncle who lived in Enterprise oregon...his driveway was 16 miles long and closest neighbor was 9 miles away. He was a cattleman who had more than 6000 acres of untouched prime hunting land...i never found the need to go hunt it...just driving to the house you'd see tons of elk,deer and bears...it was to simple.
Sounds to me like you must not like hunting that much then, Swift. I'd of been hunting Oregon and Washington every year, if I was you.
It's just too simple for him..ah the luxury of having private ground to yourself, now that is HUNTING for that big one.
FYI shot my buck on public land this year.
Post by: alecvg on November 17, 2010, 10:14:46 PM
Muley...i don't need to post pictures of my bucks. The ones that actually matter...aren't even the biggest, there the ones that got away.
:chuckle: I had a feeling that was coming
Me too :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: muleyguy on November 17, 2010, 10:15:25 PM
Quote
Muley...i don't need to post pictures of my bucks. The ones that actually matter...aren't even the biggest, there the ones that got away.
thats what i figured........
Post by: JimmyHoffa on November 17, 2010, 10:17:10 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 17, 2010, 10:17:24 PM
Post by: Wazukie on November 17, 2010, 10:28:16 PM
Post by: Swiftkid on November 17, 2010, 10:28:34 PM
Post by: Prime Time on November 17, 2010, 10:33:28 PM
I think Miles knows where i'm coming from...i love hunting WA, i like hunting the areas i grew up hunting, i hope one day my son will learn to hunt the area i do. I like knowing what is around every bend and the challenge to find a buck that i want to shoot.
I don't think anyone has said that they don't like hunting this state, but there is other places to hunt with more animals but by no means does it mean it's any less challenging to find a buck you want to shoot? I like hunting out of state because I see more game, and have a good time doing something different, hunting new country. But that doesn't mean I don't love hunting here around home too? ???
Post by: ScottyG on November 17, 2010, 10:50:14 PM
I do it because that is where my family is and the places I grew up hunting are... want to hear the crazy part... my out of state is Washington. And, I hunt public land.
It's not just about the money. It's not just about the animals. It's about the memories you make and how you make them. If going out of state helps you make your memories then that is where you should go...
There is no right or wrong to it.
Scott
Post by: Little Dave on November 17, 2010, 11:30:26 PM
Well I'm just back from Montana. A few things I noticed. Just about every town had it's "welcome hunters" sign up. Not uncommon to see the orange in other rigs on the four lane. Tuning into the local radio station they're running a contest to see who has the closest guess to how many elk pass through the Darby check station. There's not nearly as much trash in the backcountry as there is here.
Post by: littlemac on November 18, 2010, 12:36:52 AM
I have a great group on camp out of Liberty and we've been there for 30 plus years most of us. I wouldn't miss it for the world.
Same goes for our hunts in New Mexico now too. Different group, one main friend that brings a buddy and I do too. My brother, my son, a friend but always there is my huntin' partner from Iowa to hook up with and tell tales.
We don't hunt the same though, he heads out for a trophy of a lifetime and I head out for a good hunt and to fill my freezer. I have gotten some nice animals sure, but I have eaten elk every year I have been to New Mexico. We spend some money but not a huge amount, lucky that way to have the hunt we do.
I am also fortunate to call my own vacation time and if I have a hunt, well it's vacation time. Not a luxury I had in my youth, maybe us older guys are just makin' up for lost time, time we spent workin' so we could enjoy more huntin' now. Whatever it is, to each his own and may you all get the time in the woods you want and may your success be spendin' that time.
Post by: CountryslickR on November 18, 2010, 01:30:06 AM
I think Miles knows where i'm coming from...i love hunting WA, i like hunting the areas i grew up hunting, i hope one day my son will learn to hunt the area i do. I like knowing what is around every bend and the challenge to find a buck that i want to shoot.
Your son wont be able to hunt the areas that you do if you keep shooting small bucks, and not let them mature and spread genes....of what could have been...
Post by: jagermiester on November 18, 2010, 06:21:37 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 18, 2010, 06:59:23 AM
Post by: Glockster on November 18, 2010, 07:20:17 AM
For me the reason is simply heart break. I am heart broken over the precipitous decline in deer and the miss- management of them in my 'ancestral" hunting grounds here in WA. There are enough sources of stress and depression in life....hunting shouldn't be one of them. That's why I'm going out of state.
Post by: high country on November 18, 2010, 07:43:16 AM
now pick any spot close to a town in montana......lets use simms. I hunted within 10 miles of town, saw at least 20 bucks in 3 hours and all were 18" plus. move to the north 30 miles and we saw gobs of bucks that beat 24".......head out to yellowstone country, just going for a drive I could count on seeing 30 plus bucks from the road in a 4 hour drive......in all those places I never saw more then one other hunter.
Post by: baldopepper on November 18, 2010, 07:55:48 AM
Post by: spookgus on November 18, 2010, 08:55:53 AM
I hunt Montana because I can bow hunt deer and elk during the elk rut for a week then go back and rifle hunt deer and elk during the deer rut/migration for a week.
Post by: quadrafire on November 18, 2010, 09:03:06 AM
I go out to Utah deerhunting every year that I can draw out simply because I was raised there and have family there. It's a combined hunt and reunion. It's amusing to go on the Utah Outdoor forum and read the very same complaints about hunting in Utah that I read on the Washington forum about hunting in Washington. It's all only as good or bad as you want to make it. I've been hunting and fishing for over 60 years-went from the "gotta get my game" to now just enjoying every day that I can get out and spend time in the woods or on the water. I know many wildlife management people and I can say that all of them were dedicated people who made the best decisions they could under the restrictions they have to work with. Wildlife management has changed dramatically during my lifetime and I don't envy those who have to try to keep everyone from hardcore PAWS members to hardcore hunters happy. It is what it is-get out in Washington, Utah, Montana, Wyo or wherever you can go and enjoy-make your opinions known and heard and then go enjoy.
Baldo----That post should be required reading. That is awsome and well thought out!
It is what it is. good one
Post by: Glockster on November 18, 2010, 12:18:17 PM
When they took the word "GAME" out and replaced it with Dept of Fish & WILDLIFE that's when we lost WA. Now game and those who care about it (HUNTERS) are just one of the many "user groups" they serve. I liked Dave Workman's idea: abolish WDFW, put wildlife management in DNR and DOE's hands and bring back the GAME DEPT! This guy should run for Governor!
The GAME DEPT would be charged with GAME MANAGEMENT and nothing else...no frogs, no dicky birds, no wolf 'recovery' studies, no Seafair patrols, no marijuana task forces, etc! I bet we could pay for a GAME Dept with licensing revenue if game was all they were in charge of. The Game Dept Director's salary and bonus plan should be tied directly to the overall statewide deer hunter success rate.
Hunters would be allowed and encouraged to purchase hunt multiple weapon season tags and the limits would remain one deer/ one elk / year. "Choose your weapon" only served to fracture and divide the state's hunting community and greatly reduced the overall amount hunters contributed to the rural economies by hunting multiple seasons.
I don't buy the "quality" hunt BS. Back in the 80's and earlier there were twice as many hunters... we were spread out and and had modern firearm elk seasons that lasted two weeks and were in mid November...any bull on the Eastside. That was quality hunting.
Now we have 3pt buck and spike bull blanket regs....and now lots of meat standing on the hoof at the feeding stations, AKA "Watchable Wildlife Viewing Opportunities". (Look at all these big bulls and bucks; see what a good job we're doing )I'm betting this year's winter kill will be horrendous. Literally tons of meat (the 3pt bucks and 6pt bulls) are going to feed the yotes, wolves, and magpies this winter. That meat should have gone to feeding people.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 18, 2010, 01:31:38 PM
Hunters would be allowed and encouraged to purchase hunt multiple weapon season tags and the limits would remain one deer/ one elk / year. "Choose your weapon" only served to fracture and divide the state's hunting community and greatly reduced the overall amount hunters contributed to the rural economies by hunting multiple seasons.
I don't buy the "quality" hunt BS. Back in the 80's and earlier there were twice as many hunters... we were spread out and and had modern firearm elk seasons that lasted two weeks and were in mid November...any bull on the Eastside. That was quality hunting.
Now we have 3pt buck and spike bull blanket regs....and now lots of meat standing on the hoof at the feeding stations, AKA "Watchable Wildlife Viewing Opportunities". (Look at all these big bulls and bucks; see what a good job we're doing )I'm betting this year's winter kill will be horrendous. Literally tons of meat (the 3pt bucks and 6pt bulls) are going to feed the yotes, wolves, and magpies this winter. That meat should have gone to feeding people.
That's a great point on the "choose your weapon". I can certainly understand the impact it has had on rural economies and I do see how it has fractured the hunting community here in WA.
Where I grew up you could hunt deer from Oct 1 - Feb 28, you could hunt with any weapon, you could kill two bucks and one doe with no antler restrictions, there were far more hunters than here in WA, there was far less Public Land and it was far more difficult to gain access to private and if it's brown it's down so if you ever take a whitetail buck 110 inches or larger you are the talk of the town (don't get me wrong there was still the occasional giant). When you did "pay" for access to private you were sharing it with a lot of other people and the hunting pressure was horrendous...same for the Public land. Don't get me wrong. It's where I cut my teeth and I would never take it back. I have no doubts that WDFW can do a better job and I can't speak to the Golden Years of the 80's because I wasn't here....But if you don't buy the "quality" hunt BS then I am assuming you haven't experienced anything like people backe east because I have seen nothing like it here in the west. I would consider every Western hunt I have ever been on a quality hunt/experience.
Since I have been in WA I have easily been able to gain access to private land, there is tons of public land full of game that is virtually untouched in many areas and bowhuting opportunties at 130-150 class whitetail are a very regular occurence. Not to mention that I annually see a few whiteatil in the 150-170 range (haven't been able to connect on anything 150+...yet) and then every few years I will see a 170+. In addition I can experience all of this without having 5 hunters set up within a few hundred yards of my position.
I think if I was a little more serious about the other game animals I would likely feel the pain but when it comes to the whitetail management I only have a few complaints and I definitely consider the hunt an all around quality experience...guess my standards are lower since I am originally from back east.
Of course places like Montana are going to be great....lot's of quality habitat, more game and fewer people...you can't beat that....unfortunately I didn't draw a tag this year...good thing I could still hunt the big boys here in WA. I love Hunting Washington.
Post by: cohoho on November 18, 2010, 01:58:30 PM
Besides the variety, the terrain, the environment, it is all about experiences and adventures. Some of the most beautiful places in the world. The hospitality, the people, the fun and again the adventure! Can you see a 1000 Deer and Antelope in a weekend here? Can you see herds of 500 Caribou? Can you see twelve brown bears feeding off a single river? Can you see 50 Dall Sheep on a ridge? Can you see a group of 30 Moose in the same location? Can you see the Northern Lights? Can you actually experience 100% complete remoteness? Tetons at Dusk? 100's of miles of fields, tundra, etc...? Yea Washington has beautiful places but why not broaden your prospective.. You might have your honey holes here, that is great, as I have mine in my old stopping grounds in AK, but Wyoming and Montana is so exciting....
Question back for you: Do you eat at the same restruant everytime you go out???? Why do you go somewhere different? Variety-- Maybe?
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 18, 2010, 02:00:15 PM
Post by: MtnMuley on November 18, 2010, 02:04:28 PM
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on November 18, 2010, 03:03:09 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 18, 2010, 03:25:10 PM
Swift - you sound very content and thats awesome, in a way I envy you. I love to hunt. I love everything about it. I started hunting out of state 4 years ago, and will continue to do so every year for as long as I can. In as many places as possible. I started out hunting and learned to hunt on washingtons wetside and my honey holes within the crk bottoms, clear cuts, deep forests, logging roads, as well as the blacktails and roosevelts that call it home will always hold a special place in my heart as long as I hunt, hell as long as im alive. Its useless to compare all the different hunting experiences, cuz thats all that it is- different. Not better, not worse. I have had awesome hunts in state, hard hunts and ez hunts. Same with my out of state hunts. There are things I wish were done differently here managment wise, same out of state. The point isn't to find a BETTER hunting experience per se, because everybody has a different idea of what a great hunting experience is. The point is to have as MANY experiences as possible, as many adventures. Again, for some walking into the backyard will always be experince enough, learning intimatley and predicting with accuracy. Sometimes I wish I had that. For me the backyard isn't even scratching the surface. Itchy feet for me, always looking over the next horizon. Throw me a curve ball, make it tough. Out of state? How bout out of country! :):yeah:
Post by: Swiftkid on November 18, 2010, 06:00:08 PM
I think Miles knows where i'm coming from...i love hunting WA, i like hunting the areas i grew up hunting, i hope one day my son will learn to hunt the area i do. I like knowing what is around every bend and the challenge to find a buck that i want to shoot.
Your son wont be able to hunt the areas that you do if you keep shooting small bucks, and not let them mature and spread genes....of what could have been...
I don't shoot small bucks...i get bigger every year if that means not filling my tag then so be it. Deer #'s are great in my unit so i don't think i have anything to fear, more deer were killed 30 years ago then are now and were still sittin pretty.
Post by: CountryslickR on November 18, 2010, 06:15:31 PM
I think Baldo really hit the nail on the head with regards to state wildlife agencies trying to please both ends of the spectrum...from animal rights wackos to us hunters.
When they took the word "GAME" out and replaced it with Dept of Fish & WILDLIFE that's when we lost WA. Now game and those who care about it (HUNTERS) are just one of the many "user groups" they serve. I liked Dave Workman's idea: abolish WDFW, put wildlife management in DNR and DOE's hands and bring back the GAME DEPT! This guy should run for Governor!
The GAME DEPT would be charged with GAME MANAGEMENT and nothing else...no frogs, no dicky birds, no wolf 'recovery' studies, no Seafair patrols, no marijuana task forces, etc! I bet we could pay for a GAME Dept with licensing revenue if game was all they were in charge of. The Game Dept Director's salary and bonus plan should be tied directly to the overall statewide deer hunter success rate.
Hunters would be allowed and encouraged to purchase hunt multiple weapon season tags and the limits would remain one deer/ one elk / year. "Choose your weapon" only served to fracture and divide the state's hunting community and greatly reduced the overall amount hunters contributed to the rural economies by hunting multiple seasons.
I don't buy the "quality" hunt BS. Back in the 80's and earlier there were twice as many hunters... we were spread out and and had modern firearm elk seasons that lasted two weeks and were in mid November...any bull on the Eastside. That was quality hunting.
Now we have 3pt buck and spike bull blanket regs....and now lots of meat standing on the hoof at the feeding stations, AKA "Watchable Wildlife Viewing Opportunities". (Look at all these big bulls and bucks; see what a good job we're doing )I'm betting this year's winter kill will be horrendous. Literally tons of meat (the 3pt bucks and 6pt bulls) are going to feed the yotes, wolves, and magpies this winter. That meat should have gone to feeding people.
:bs:
:cryriver:
Post by: deerslyr on November 18, 2010, 06:40:07 PM
Post by: CountryslickR on November 18, 2010, 06:48:17 PM
Post by: backcountry55 on November 18, 2010, 07:27:51 PM
Post by: deerslyr on November 18, 2010, 07:53:11 PM
1. More land open to public to hunt
2. less hunters per amount of public land
3. MORE animals
4. MORE TROPHY POTENTIAL
5. Considerably better seasons
Dont get me wrong washington has SOME great hunting and I have opportunities at awesome bucks and bulls every year here but when you try and compare Washington to say Montana or Wyoming...well theres no comparison, when you look at it in these 5 aspects. And personally harvesting one buck a year just isnt good enough for me so I try and go to other states as much as I can afford...but then again im an addict :chuckle:
Also experiencing another area with a different culture is awesome and sometimes hard to describe. The hospitality and friendliness of people in Idaho from what ive experienced is something ull rarely find in washington.
Post by: gadwall on November 18, 2010, 09:26:11 PM
part of it is the adventure Swift. Different country etc.:yeah: :yeah:
Gadwall
Post by: muleyguy on November 18, 2010, 09:51:44 PM
Quote
I don't shoot small bucks...
is the buck in your avatar your best one?
Post by: alecvg on November 18, 2010, 10:20:44 PM
QuoteI don't shoot small bucks...
is the buck in your avatar your best one?
Hey, its not the size of the buck, its the ones that got away that matter! :) At least thats the explaination for not showing pictures :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: Swiftkid on November 18, 2010, 10:33:37 PM
Post by: CountryslickR on November 19, 2010, 12:48:54 AM
:yeah:QuoteI don't shoot small bucks...
is the buck in your avatar your best one?
Hey, its not the size of the buck, its the ones that got away that matter! :) At least thats the explaination for not showing pictures :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: PolarBear on November 19, 2010, 01:39:45 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 19, 2010, 09:45:19 AM
I think Baldo really hit the nail on the head with regards to state wildlife agencies trying to please both ends of the spectrum...from animal rights wackos to us hunters.:tup: :yeah:
When they took the word "GAME" out and replaced it with Dept of Fish & WILDLIFE that's when we lost WA. Now game and those who care about it (HUNTERS) are just one of the many "user groups" they serve. I liked Dave Workman's idea: abolish WDFW, put wildlife management in DNR and DOE's hands and bring back the GAME DEPT! This guy should run for Governor!
The GAME DEPT would be charged with GAME MANAGEMENT and nothing else...no frogs, no dicky birds, no wolf 'recovery' studies, no Seafair patrols, no marijuana task forces, etc! I bet we could pay for a GAME Dept with licensing revenue if game was all they were in charge of. The Game Dept Director's salary and bonus plan should be tied directly to the overall statewide deer hunter success rate.
Hunters would be allowed and encouraged to purchase hunt multiple weapon season tags and the limits would remain one deer/ one elk / year. "Choose your weapon" only served to fracture and divide the state's hunting community and greatly reduced the overall amount hunters contributed to the rural economies by hunting multiple seasons.
I don't buy the "quality" hunt BS. Back in the 80's and earlier there were twice as many hunters... we were spread out and and had modern firearm elk seasons that lasted two weeks and were in mid November...any bull on the Eastside. That was quality hunting.
Now we have 3pt buck and spike bull blanket regs....and now lots of meat standing on the hoof at the feeding stations, AKA "Watchable Wildlife Viewing Opportunities". (Look at all these big bulls and bucks; see what a good job we're doing )I'm betting this year's winter kill will be horrendous. Literally tons of meat (the 3pt bucks and 6pt bulls) are going to feed the yotes, wolves, and magpies this winter. That meat should have gone to feeding people.
Well, if I were to run for governor, as I said in that message a couple of weeks back, one of the very first things I would do is call for a performance audit of the WDFW.
I grew up in Washington and I have watched the decline in hunting opportunity ever since, and maybe even before, the agency changed from being the Department of GAME to the Department of (No) Fish and (Watchable) WILDLIFE.
The last legal mule deer I shot in Washington was in the early 1990s, the last year prior to the imposition of the 3-point rule.
The biggest bucks I have shot have all been taken OUT OF STATE. And that tells me something.
I shot a nice 2x3 down in southern Utah. Couple of years later, I anchored a really nice 4-pt buck in SE Wyoming, and a few years ago I clobbered a bigger 4-pointer southeast of Terry, MT (moving shot, 250 yards) that I wrote about in GUN WORLD magazine.
Anybody who knows me knows that when I hunt, I hunt hard and at my age, that's a bitch sometimes. But when one can go days without seeing a single animal or a fresh track, in areas that are supposed to be fairly populated with deer, there's something haywire.
Many years ago, when I first started at Fishing & Hunting News, the executive editor reminded me that "If you want to insure the survival of a species, put a hunting season on it. Hunters will make damn sure there are plenty of animals to hunt."
Instead, we have an agency apparently more interested in wolves and watchable wildlife than in putting elk and deer in the cooler where they belong. What good are a dozen, 15 or 20 or a hundred dead deer or elk in late January or early February? If we have a hard winter, and it's beginning to shape up that way with the snow we've already seen, maybe "Glockster" is right. We could have a big winter kill.
A lot of game animals will not survive, and that's a sign that somebody's management scheme is FUBAR.
I remember hunting elk for two weeks and three full weekends. I remember a couple of those seasons when the end of buck season overlapped with the opening day of bull elk, and that was a grand experience. But someone in the department convinced the commission that this was an opportunity for "party hunters" to kill an animal because "somebody had a tag."
That may have happened, no doubt, but it was hardly rampant enough to muck up the hunting opportunity for the vast majority of people who were out there hunting on the straight.
I live out in North Bend and every day almost there are traffic jams between North Bend and Snoqualmie caused by morons stopping on the highway to watch the big elk herd on the Meadowbrook farm. There are a couple of hundred elk in there, and they're a &$#damn nuisance, not just a danger to traffic but they move over onto the nearby golf course and raise hell. Yes, they are nice to look at but where they are now makes driving simply dangerous.
I attended a meeting of a bunch of concerned citizens and afterward told the WDFW agent..a guy I'd known for some years...that the best solution to this would be to put some bowhunters in there to clobber a few of those elk, and the rest of them would head back north onto the old Weyerhaeuser tree farm where more hunters could take advantage of them. He did not disagree.
As for the mule deer antler restriction, I was hunting in Okanogan this year and down on the Snake, and along the east slope around Teanaway. We saw nothing but a lot of 2-point bucks.
I pose this question: If the regs are set up to allow the harvest of the older mature bucks, that leaves a lot of fork horns to do the breeding. What does that do to the herd gene pool after a few cycles? Give that some thought.
"CountryslickR" essentially accused Glockster of being a crybaby with his little cartoons. Pretty cheap shot. I happen to know that guy and he's a devoted hunter who also grew up around here and he's seen this happen same as me.
There is no sound reason, NONE, for "Resource allocation" management where people are prohibited from extending their opportunity by obtaining an extra stamp or validation that allows them to hunt the general season and, if they don't notch a tag, grab a muzzleloader or bow and keep at it. If they can only take one elk and one deer annually, where's the harm in letting them try and taking in the revenue?
Would that not be preferable to the kind of grotesque circus we saw last year up along Highway 20 IIRC with the archers shooting elk in some guy's roadside pasture in front of a lot of really angry motorists? Everyone recall the video on television? I opposed Resource Allocation for years. I would have to check the figures, but last time I did, it appeared that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-100,000 FEWER hunters in the field than during the 60s and 70s, and yet the seasons are shorter and opportunities are more limited. Why is that?
There's been a dispute over the timing of the elk seasons on the eastside, how they were moved earlier. This may be just swell with horse packers and guides who take clients into the Jackson wilderness, but it doesn't provide much opportunity for guys down on the Little Naches or Crow Creek or the Manastash and Taneum because the weather doesn't set in to move the elk until after the season closes. Are we all supporting a bunch of packers?
If I were governor, I would dearly love to hire a GAME director like the guy who brought in our wild turkey program 20 years ago. That has been the only truly remarkable success story designed specifically to provide a new and productive hunting opportunity. But Olympia doesn't want guys like that around. They seem more interested in inviting wolves and sitting on the sidelines while the fur huggers outlaw hound hunting.
If I were governor, I'd FIND the money somewhere, or go after grants, to re-establish the EW pheasant release program, to put the hatcheries back in full production, to enhance elk and deer and waterfowl habitat, and to take Washington back to the time when it didn't cost a guy a fortune to buy licenses and tags for himself and his kids, and when they had a genuine opportunity to put fish in the creel and game in the cooler.
Yeah, :P if I were governor, I'd turn back the clock, and if some people didn't care for the change, they'd get road maps to California.
But I'm not the governor and probably won't become governor only because I can't find enough dead people to vote for me in King County.
:chuckle: :chuckle: ;)
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 19, 2010, 09:53:59 AM
Post by: 400out on November 19, 2010, 10:06:28 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 19, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
I will say with whitetail I see the opposite of what you see with mule deer. I see a much higher percentage of mature bucks in units with the 3pt rule. That being said I do believe any type of point rule antler restrictions has flaws. The one Dave mentioned about the 2 pt.'s being the biggest one.
Post by: steeleywhopper on November 19, 2010, 11:14:53 AM
Post by: Glockster on November 19, 2010, 11:27:30 AM
The other effect has been a dramatic lowering of the over all "success" or kill % per hunter which hasn't helped this state retain or recruit new deer hunters. Hence, this mass exodus of Washingtonians hunting out of state. And they've taken millions of their dollars with them...money that used to be spent in places like Naches.
The real unfortunate reality of antler restrictions has been the inexucable practice of "ground checking"...guys who shoot when they see horn...and then run when they see it on the ground with not enough points. ~Remember all of the guys who came on here to defend the bear hunter who shot the brushpicker? "Anything can happen in the heat of the moment" was a very common (and unexcusable) defense. There are alot of guys with that mentality out there.
On the elk side of things, I have seen raghorn bulls left to rot in the Bethel unit. I heard of at least 9 wasted bulls that were not "true Spikes" in the Collockum this year. These bulls are in the same 2-3yr age class as the "true spikes" the managers have decided to focus all the pressure on.
These wasteful situations are examples of what is desired by the managers vs what is happening due to their mis-management.
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 01:21:14 PM
rules like 3 pt or better provide a short term public relations boost for the wildlife department because all they do is shift the harvest from 1.5 yr old deer to 2.5 yr old deer; and now, the avg hunter in this state is shooting a basket racked 19" 3 pt instead of a spike or little 2 pt; and, for many hunters this is the biggest deer they have ever harvested (swiftkid) so they are "happy" and think things are great.......
BUT, antler pt restrictions will not solve the bigger problem of too many hunters relative to the amount of land base in the state; blacktails and whitetails are the exception, as their habitat choices, behavior patterns, and high tolerance of living near humans results in good numbers of animals with decent buck to doe ratio's and decent buck population dynamics (nice mix of all age classes).
so, the discussion is not really about them, it is about mule deer; the "answer" is not to go back to longer seasons and do away with all the restrictions;
the answer, is more restrictions on hunter tag numbers and very tight and targeted antlerless opporutnities, if any at all; if you reduced the hunter numbers by 33% and got rid of all the antlerless opportunities (except maybe in some ag areas), you could increase the season length, get rid of the stupid 3 pt minimum rule, provide more trophy opportunities, reduce the number of hunters in the field, and basically, provide a "quality experience" in the field;
the price to this would be simply that 1 out of 3 yrs you wouldn't get to hunt; right now, the dept has these very strict season length restrictions and provide a precious few "trophy tags"; but, realistically, you are only going to get drawn 1 or 2 in your lifetime; if the dept went the other way as described above, you would miss one season out three, but, 66% of time, you are going to have a quality hunt.
the only thing that will solve WA state's issue's is to go to a limited draw system for all deer that restricts the number of hunters in the field every year; BUT nobody is willing to give up their yearly trip, so we are going to slowly, but surely, destroy the hunting in this state because none of us want to give one inch.
are there decent opportunities in this state still??? sure, but, how many of us have the time (or want to stay married......) to spend 60 days a year in the field scouting for that perfect spot each year??? Every year it gets worse and worse; more people in the areas that you thought you had to yourself;
going back to 3 week seasons that extend into early november and overlap with elk hunting etc, is a relic of the past........in our lifetimes, WA will either take the drastic step like OR and NV has done and go to draw only mule deer seasons; or by the time our kids grow up, quality, public land hunting opportunities in this state will be non-existent.
Post by: sisu on November 19, 2010, 01:26:21 PM
Very well put Dave :)
:yeah:DAVE WORKMAN FOR GOVERNOR
Post by: boneaddict on November 19, 2010, 01:54:06 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 01:55:17 PM
Quote
are you photographing all those bucks in Montana and trying to pull a fast one on us?
so your justification that "things are all right" is because you can go up on the winter range, during the rut, which concentrates deer into a several square mile area from literally hundreds of square miles, and take a bunch of photograph's?? I went to the miss america contest last year, and came away thinking I should have no trouble finding a beautiful, smart women to marry.......hell, there all over the place......
ever been up to the elk feeding station in yakima??? every bull from 100 miles in that place, that doesn't mean that things are ok
now, don't take this the wrong way bone, I am in no way dismissing what you are able to achieve in your photography; and, from watching you on here, you are able to take some great pics even out of the rut, and migratory areas.
But, at what cost??? How many hrs and days have you spent afield in the last 15 yrs to be able to achieve this?? I have no doubt boneaddict could find a 160 to 170 class buck to harvest in this state every year.
but, that doesn't mean things are "ok";
Post by: boneaddict on November 19, 2010, 02:11:02 PM
Yes, the rut does help. Dramatically. There are fools on here that think the general season should be during the rut. Thats about the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Yes the deer herd is in trouble in this state. Mostly becasue of predator control. Wolves, cougar, bears etc. They are doing better with controlling bear. Talk to all those living in downtown King County. They seem to know everything. Kind of hard to blame the WDFW when the people can't pull their heads out of their asses enough to vote sensibly. Who do I blame...mostly the idiot Eastside folks that didn't vote. You know who you are.
Take away the three point rule, and you are going to destroy whats left of the deer population. PERIOD!
You want to fix things. CONTROL predators....fix the Indian problem. You want to change something for a better chance of killing nice deer in this state. GET RID OF THE PERMIT DRAWS. Yes its the golden ticket. Yes some of you will get to do it once or maybe twice if you are absolutely frickin lucky. BUT.....do away with it and those prime vulnerable bucks will be around during the general season.
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 02:18:10 PM
if you were a true steward of the sport, you would realize something is drastically wrong in this state with the mule deer herd. You can kid yourself all you want to try and win internet arguments ........
I remember you a month ago shooting a great buck for WA and I commend you for that, looks like you put in some hard work, and have some good areas;
and, like I said in the earlier post, you and bone should not take any of this as an attack, rather, it is impressive that you can put yourself in a position in this state to harvest a buck like that.
but, once again, that does not mean everything is ok.........
Post by: DoubleJ on November 19, 2010, 02:21:50 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 19, 2010, 02:25:58 PM
Wshington has a problem, so does Montana and so does Idaho.
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 02:35:48 PM
Quote
You want to fix things. CONTROL predators....fix the Indian problem.
I agree; BUT we can't do anything about that.....and, other states might not have the indian problem we do, but they arguably have at least as bad or worse predator problems (more wolves then us), but, their deer herds are still in better shape then ours;
Quote
Take away the three point rule, and you are going to destroy whats left of the deer population. PERIOD!
not if you cut the yearly buck harvest by 1/3;
Quote
BUT.....do away with it and those prime vulnerable bucks will be around during the general season.
I don't disagree with that; but, once again, if you reduced the buck harvest by 1/3 you could probably still offer those permits and be ok; but, I don't totally disagree with you because this state, given all of its other problems, just might not be able to sustain that
but, the biggest problem in this state is just plain old over-harvest of bucks in the general season; if you get the general season harvest down my guess is the rest will take care of itself
Post by: bobcat on November 19, 2010, 02:36:25 PM
the primary problem in WA is it has the highest hunter numbers relative to the smallest land base of any of the Western state's; antler pt restrictions can be useful IF used in the right situation; but, most of the time are being used by our Wildlife department to try and solve a much bigger problem, and they are not capable of solving the bigger issue;
rules like 3 pt or better provide a short term public relations boost for the wildlife department because all they do is shift the harvest from 1.5 yr old deer to 2.5 yr old deer; and now, the avg hunter in this state is shooting a basket racked 19" 3 pt instead of a spike or little 2 pt; and, for many hunters this is the biggest deer they have ever harvested (swiftkid) so they are "happy" and think things are great.......
BUT, antler pt restrictions will not solve the bigger problem of too many hunters relative to the amount of land base in the state; blacktails and whitetails are the exception, as their habitat choices, behavior patterns, and high tolerance of living near humans results in good numbers of animals with decent buck to doe ratio's and decent buck population dynamics (nice mix of all age classes).
so, the discussion is not really about them, it is about mule deer; the "answer" is not to go back to longer seasons and do away with all the restrictions;
the answer, is more restrictions on hunter tag numbers and very tight and targeted antlerless opporutnities, if any at all; if you reduced the hunter numbers by 33% and got rid of all the antlerless opportunities (except maybe in some ag areas), you could increase the season length, get rid of the stupid 3 pt minimum rule, provide more trophy opportunities, reduce the number of hunters in the field, and basically, provide a "quality experience" in the field;
the price to this would be simply that 1 out of 3 yrs you wouldn't get to hunt; right now, the dept has these very strict season length restrictions and provide a precious few "trophy tags"; but, realistically, you are only going to get drawn 1 or 2 in your lifetime; if the dept went the other way as described above, you would miss one season out three, but, 66% of time, you are going to have a quality hunt.
the only thing that will solve WA state's issue's is to go to a limited draw system for all deer that restricts the number of hunters in the field every year; BUT nobody is willing to give up their yearly trip, so we are going to slowly, but surely, destroy the hunting in this state because none of us want to give one inch.
are there decent opportunities in this state still??? sure, but, how many of us have the time (or want to stay married......) to spend 60 days a year in the field scouting for that perfect spot each year??? Every year it gets worse and worse; more people in the areas that you thought you had to yourself;
going back to 3 week seasons that extend into early november and overlap with elk hunting etc, is a relic of the past........in our lifetimes, WA will either take the drastic step like OR and NV has done and go to draw only mule deer seasons; or by the time our kids grow up, quality, public land hunting opportunities in this state will be non-existent.
:yeah:
MULEY GUY FOR GOVERNOR
Post by: halflife65 on November 19, 2010, 02:36:41 PM
1. You can't stop native hunting
2. You might lose a lot of hunters - young kids wouldn't start hunting (the ones about 10 or 12 that are just about to get going) making them 15 to 17 when they get the opportunity unless their parents can afford to take them out of state. You might lose them if you don't have them out before that time.
3. It will be hard to kickstart it again once it's gone - you let a few wolves in and then all the states get sued until there's 5 times (or more) the original stated goals. How is hunting to come back if you were to shut it down in an environment like this? Everyone might have the good intentions, and see the need to, bring hunting back but *censored* lawsuits causing judges to make decisions about things that they are unqualified to make decisions about cause things to happen differently than they should...(not unqualified judges but they are most likely not qualified biologists.)
4. Not sure how much of the percentage of the overall budget is license/tag fees, but a lot of that would be gone (you might get some for turkeys, bird hunters, etc. but a great percentage would be missing)
5. Probably like many people, I would find a place out of state to hunt and might not ever come back, even if they opened it again.
I like out of the box thinking, so I'm certainly not attacking you. I just don't think it would work as intended.
Post by: kramman on November 19, 2010, 04:28:00 PM
Post by: BlackRidge on November 19, 2010, 05:14:32 PM
The adventure of going somewhere new, differing season lengths, having access to game you wouldnt normally in your home state, aaaaaaand decent hunting seasons.
I'd hunt WA for the rest of my life BUT, we all know you stand a better chance of tagging something pretty much anywhere BUT here. The seasons arent exactly ideal (rut-wise/rule-wise), theres so much private property its a hunt in itself just finding a decent (legal) spot, and the sheer population here makes it a party in most places.
I'm definitely looking to go out of state next year to see how things go, the experience alone should be well worth the money :twocents:
Post by: mulehunter on November 19, 2010, 05:55:24 PM
I hope I am wrong... if there ALMOST 7 Million People in Washington ALONE today. How much room for all Animals to hide in Wood. Only 1/4 of size in Washington are Public.
:dunno:
Yes I have went out of state a lot. Its WORTH IT! But spend money OUCH! Idaho is pretty BIGGEST area for me to run hounds MILES MILES place and lots room for dogs to chase.. I love it there. I caught some NICE Bears and Cats myself over there on my Permits.. People afraid to hunt there due too many Wolves but I went there for my passion and no one will not STOP me doing what I love to do.
Mulehunter
Post by: Ryan on November 19, 2010, 05:57:23 PM
Post by: boneaddict on November 19, 2010, 06:15:18 PM
ESPECIALLY since the natives can shoot as many deer as they'd like in a year. The wolves will prey on any influx of population. The balance will be more predators and less hunting. YIPPEE, lets sign up and give away more rights.
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 06:33:00 PM
Quote
the buy in to say you can hunt every three years is hard to swallow
a 1/3 cut in the buck harvest would only result in not being able to hunt 1 out of 3 yrs; you would get to hunt 2 out every 3 yrs;
and, some simple rule changes along the lines of letting a youth hunter be able to "party hunt" could take care of the concerns.
the issue isn't about youth hunters, that issue can easily be overcome; allocate more youth tags for whitetail for example or the party tag example
the real problem is that us adults want to hunt every year; youths don't kill enough deer in a year to amount to much;
what it really boils down to is us adults giving up one year out of three for hunting; that simple change would solve it;
personally, I would rather have 2 really great quality hunts (with my kids) and one year off vs 3 terrible hunts with them that sours them on the sport;
as I said in the earlier example, bone, you are the exception because you can get your kid into a quality hunting experience because of the thousands of hrs you have spent in the field;
you can't fix it with antler pt restrictions, longer seasons, blah, blah, blah....the only thing that "fixes" it is the hard medicine of shooting fewer deer per year!!
Post by: Dave Workman on November 19, 2010, 06:40:32 PM
so, the discussion is not really about them, it is about mule deer; the "answer" is not to go back to longer seasons and do away with all the restrictions;:bdid:
the answer, is more restrictions on hunter tag numbers and very tight and targeted antlerless opporutnities, if any at all; if you reduced the hunter numbers by 33% and got rid of all the antlerless opportunities (except maybe in some ag areas), you could increase the season length, get rid of the stupid 3 pt minimum rule, provide more trophy opportunities, reduce the number of hunters in the field, and basically, provide a "quality experience" in the field;
the price to this would be simply that 1 out of 3 yrs you wouldn't get to hunt; right now, the dept has these very strict season length restrictions and provide a precious few "trophy tags"; but, realistically, you are only going to get drawn 1 or 2 in your lifetime; if the dept went the other way as described above, you would miss one season out three, but, 66% of time, you are going to have a quality hunt.
There is no way, NONE, ZERO, ZIP, NADA that hunters in this state should ever advocate cutting opportunities for other hunters.
I keep hearing that stuff about the "most hunters for the smallest land mass" and then I look around and see a gazillion acres of public land that is loaded with habitat that nobody does anything with. I hunted all over this season, and last year and the year before that, and all the years before that, and in far too many places where there should be deer and elk tracks all over there was nothing but cow crap.
I've hunted in other states and been able to count a hundred deer in a day on habitat no better than ours.
Twenty Five years ago, during elk season that lasted two weeks and three full weekends, the Little Naches and Nile, and the Rattlesnake, and Crow Creek would look like small cities, and people hunted and you saw elk hanging in camps.
There are tens of thousands less hunters today than there were then, so why on earth can they not have a decent hunting opportunity?
Giving this Department the chance to further limit that opportunity by surrendering to some drawing permit plan is not an option.
I do not believe that overlapping elk and deer opportunities are "a relic of the past." All we need to do is change the calendar dates, and maybe some personnel down in Oly.
We can have trophy areas, and we can have general buck opportunities that help in recruitment and retention of the next generation of hunters, because like it or not, we're not going to be here forever, and if we don't pass on this tradition, we're a pretty miserable, selfish lot; a bunch that will be remembered as "those guys who wanted fewer hunters so they could have the seasons to themselves."
We've tried it with the 3-point restriction on deer and the spike-only restriction on elk and what has that accomplished? A handful of people get nice bucks and there are some people who draw permits for nice bulls, and a few others who get to pack into the wilderness areas and enjoy those storybook hunts they see on television, and think this is just peachy. Everyone else may or may not see deer or elk and it's not good for them at all. You're just camping with guns.
I've suggested a different approach...move all non-game responsibilities to the DNR or DOE and leave GAME management to game managers; people who actually have their hearts and souls in the enhancement of GAME herds and opportunities.
Get rid of "Resource Allocation" because not only did it, by design, reduce the number of hunters, it pits the remaining hunting interests against one another, also by design. So long as we compete with one another for whatever POS seasons the agency and their rubber stamp commissioners give us, we will not be united to hold them accountable.
I've spoken to bowhunters and black powder guys, all of whom lament that when this system started, they had decent opportunities and a fair number of areas to hunt. But they've lost that over the years. My black powder hunting areas don't even exist anymore.
The shortened seasons reduce the harvest, and at the end of that season, there are lots of animals the tourists can look at and convince themselves that the state is doing a swell job. Then along comes a tough winter and die-off, and the cycle begins all over again with the agency telling the commission that "Gee, whiz, we need to keep the seasons tight because of last winter's mortality." It's a self-perpetuating prophecy kind of thing.
Into the mix we toss a growing coyote, bear and particularly cougar population. And now come the wolves, all with what appears to be an all-too-open invite from the state. Mark my words, somewhere over the horizon the state will start considering hunters to be competition to the wolves for the available deer and elk, and guess whose side the agency will come down on.
If you allow the state to start apportioning out tags now, they will keep reducing the number of tags every couple of years for this or that reason, or a combination of reasons...or maybe for no reason at all.
And then we'll be hearing from people within our own ranks who say "Well, shucks, we've got to learn to get along with less."
I don't buy that, not now, not ever.
But until I round up enough dead people in King County to vote for me, I'll never be able to do much about it.
:chuckle: :chuckle: ;)
Post by: muleyguy on November 19, 2010, 10:03:27 PM
you have obviously thought long and hard about what needs to happen to restore our deer herds to where they should be, so I commend you for that; good honest discourse on the subject will eventually lead to solutions.
but, the problem is not going to be solved by increasing the opportunities to harvest MORE deer, which seems to be your thesis; nor, is the problem going to be solved by "all of us getting along". It would be nice if that was the case, but unfortunately, it isn't. the truth is, there is a secular decline in mule deer across all western states, not just WA; the cause of this is unknown for the most part, but, it probably has to do with increasing predators, increasing human populations, changing precipitation patterns, changing fire regulations, changing grazing patterns, increasing elk populations, etc.
Given those restraints, harvesting bucks and does at levels of 15 or 20 yrs ago is simply not sustainable; there is not a surplus of mule deer in 90% of the units in washington POST hunting season; most mule deer population units are well below biological carrying levels. Too many mule deer going into winter is not the problem in this state; the problem is not enough mule deer at any time of the season.
There is a simple analysis that confirms this: take a like habitat area in WA state where it is dissected in half by public ground and private ground, and look at the deer population, and buck makeup, of the private ground vs the public ground. Habitat is the same on both, precipitation, predators, etc are all the same. And look at the differences; it is pretty obvious what is going on.
The cold hard reality of it all, is that man is the apex predator for mule deer; we are really no different then the coyotes, the wolves, or the bears; man is the primary predator of mule deer.
go look at the antlerless permits; there are literally 1000's of anterless permits and opportunities for deer in this state; are you kidding me???? there is almost nowhere in this state where there are too many deer; AND, if there are, then the right way is to have targeted antlerless permits, such as good only on private ground, etc.
so, we can all bitch and moan about this and that, but, the problem is that we are harvesting too many deer given what is the reality of todays world; if precipation factors, poaching, tribal hunting, and increasing elk populations are knocking down deer populations that really sucks........but, the solution is not to give MORE opportunities to harvest an ALREADY stressed population. The solution is to try and solve those problems the best we can, and to limit the harvest of deer to what the current conditions are while we get there.
look at NV, they are draw only, and have massive amounts of people apply for their tags because they provide a quality product; this idea that if we limit tags it is going to destroy hunting is foolish; what is going to destroy hunting is hunting that slowly gets worse an worse every year with more and more pumpkins on each ridge each year; you want to get a kid interested in hunting?? I can tell you that a good experience where they see deer and bucks on public ground without somebody around every corner will do the trick faster then the current WA experiecne, even if they only get to go every other year.
Post by: AKBowman on November 19, 2010, 11:24:36 PM
Post by: CountryslickR on November 20, 2010, 02:15:17 AM
I think Baldo really hit the nail on the head with regards to state wildlife agencies trying to please both ends of the spectrum...from animal rights wackos to us hunters.:tup: :yeah:
When they took the word "GAME" out and replaced it with Dept of Fish & WILDLIFE that's when we lost WA. Now game and those who care about it (HUNTERS) are just one of the many "user groups" they serve. I liked Dave Workman's idea: abolish WDFW, put wildlife management in DNR and DOE's hands and bring back the GAME DEPT! This guy should run for Governor!
The GAME DEPT would be charged with GAME MANAGEMENT and nothing else...no frogs, no dicky birds, no wolf 'recovery' studies, no Seafair patrols, no marijuana task forces, etc! I bet we could pay for a GAME Dept with licensing revenue if game was all they were in charge of. The Game Dept Director's salary and bonus plan should be tied directly to the overall statewide deer hunter success rate.
Hunters would be allowed and encouraged to purchase hunt multiple weapon season tags and the limits would remain one deer/ one elk / year. "Choose your weapon" only served to fracture and divide the state's hunting community and greatly reduced the overall amount hunters contributed to the rural economies by hunting multiple seasons.
I don't buy the "quality" hunt BS. Back in the 80's and earlier there were twice as many hunters... we were spread out and and had modern firearm elk seasons that lasted two weeks and were in mid November...any bull on the Eastside. That was quality hunting.
Now we have 3pt buck and spike bull blanket regs....and now lots of meat standing on the hoof at the feeding stations, AKA "Watchable Wildlife Viewing Opportunities". (Look at all these big bulls and bucks; see what a good job we're doing )I'm betting this year's winter kill will be horrendous. Literally tons of meat (the 3pt bucks and 6pt bulls) are going to feed the yotes, wolves, and magpies this winter. That meat should have gone to feeding people.
Well, if I were to run for governor, as I said in that message a couple of weeks back, one of the very first things I would do is call for a performance audit of the WDFW.
I grew up in Washington and I have watched the decline in hunting opportunity ever since, and maybe even before, the agency changed from being the Department of GAME to the Department of (No) Fish and (Watchable) WILDLIFE.
The last legal mule deer I shot in Washington was in the early 1990s, the last year prior to the imposition of the 3-point rule.
The biggest bucks I have shot have all been taken OUT OF STATE. And that tells me something.
I shot a nice 2x3 down in southern Utah. Couple of years later, I anchored a really nice 4-pt buck in SE Wyoming, and a few years ago I clobbered a bigger 4-pointer southeast of Terry, MT (moving shot, 250 yards) that I wrote about in GUN WORLD magazine.
Anybody who knows me knows that when I hunt, I hunt hard and at my age, that's a bitch sometimes. But when one can go days without seeing a single animal or a fresh track, in areas that are supposed to be fairly populated with deer, there's something haywire.
Many years ago, when I first started at Fishing & Hunting News, the executive editor reminded me that "If you want to insure the survival of a species, put a hunting season on it. Hunters will make damn sure there are plenty of animals to hunt."
Instead, we have an agency apparently more interested in wolves and watchable wildlife than in putting elk and deer in the cooler where they belong. What good are a dozen, 15 or 20 or a hundred dead deer or elk in late January or early February? If we have a hard winter, and it's beginning to shape up that way with the snow we've already seen, maybe "Glockster" is right. We could have a big winter kill.
A lot of game animals will not survive, and that's a sign that somebody's management scheme is FUBAR.
I remember hunting elk for two weeks and three full weekends. I remember a couple of those seasons when the end of buck season overlapped with the opening day of bull elk, and that was a grand experience. But someone in the department convinced the commission that this was an opportunity for "party hunters" to kill an animal because "somebody had a tag."
That may have happened, no doubt, but it was hardly rampant enough to muck up the hunting opportunity for the vast majority of people who were out there hunting on the straight.
I live out in North Bend and every day almost there are traffic jams between North Bend and Snoqualmie caused by morons stopping on the highway to watch the big elk herd on the Meadowbrook farm. There are a couple of hundred elk in there, and they're a &$#damn nuisance, not just a danger to traffic but they move over onto the nearby golf course and raise hell. Yes, they are nice to look at but where they are now makes driving simply dangerous.
I attended a meeting of a bunch of concerned citizens and afterward told the WDFW agent..a guy I'd known for some years...that the best solution to this would be to put some bowhunters in there to clobber a few of those elk, and the rest of them would head back north onto the old Weyerhaeuser tree farm where more hunters could take advantage of them. He did not disagree.
As for the mule deer antler restriction, I was hunting in Okanogan this year and down on the Snake, and along the east slope around Teanaway. We saw nothing but a lot of 2-point bucks.
I pose this question: If the regs are set up to allow the harvest of the older mature bucks, that leaves a lot of fork horns to do the breeding. What does that do to the herd gene pool after a few cycles? Give that some thought.
"CountryslickR" essentially accused Glockster of being a crybaby with his little cartoons. Pretty cheap shot. I happen to know that guy and he's a devoted hunter who also grew up around here and he's seen this happen same as me.
There is no sound reason, NONE, for "Resource allocation" management where people are prohibited from extending their opportunity by obtaining an extra stamp or validation that allows them to hunt the general season and, if they don't notch a tag, grab a muzzleloader or bow and keep at it. If they can only take one elk and one deer annually, where's the harm in letting them try and taking in the revenue?
Would that not be preferable to the kind of grotesque circus we saw last year up along Highway 20 IIRC with the archers shooting elk in some guy's roadside pasture in front of a lot of really angry motorists? Everyone recall the video on television? I opposed Resource Allocation for years. I would have to check the figures, but last time I did, it appeared that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 80-100,000 FEWER hunters in the field than during the 60s and 70s, and yet the seasons are shorter and opportunities are more limited. Why is that?
There's been a dispute over the timing of the elk seasons on the eastside, how they were moved earlier. This may be just swell with horse packers and guides who take clients into the Jackson wilderness, but it doesn't provide much opportunity for guys down on the Little Naches or Crow Creek or the Manastash and Taneum because the weather doesn't set in to move the elk until after the season closes. Are we all supporting a bunch of packers?
If I were governor, I would dearly love to hire a GAME director like the guy who brought in our wild turkey program 20 years ago. That has been the only truly remarkable success story designed specifically to provide a new and productive hunting opportunity. But Olympia doesn't want guys like that around. They seem more interested in inviting wolves and sitting on the sidelines while the fur huggers outlaw hound hunting.
If I were governor, I'd FIND the money somewhere, or go after grants, to re-establish the EW pheasant release program, to put the hatcheries back in full production, to enhance elk and deer and waterfowl habitat, and to take Washington back to the time when it didn't cost a guy a fortune to buy licenses and tags for himself and his kids, and when they had a genuine opportunity to put fish in the creel and game in the cooler.
Yeah, :P if I were governor, I'd turn back the clock, and if some people didn't care for the change, they'd get road maps to California.
But I'm not the governor and probably won't become governor only because I can't find enough dead people to vote for me in King County.
:chuckle: :chuckle: ;)
First of all... :cryriver: for your rant about not being able to hike, glass, and find a nice buck nowdays like the rest of the hunters that shoot great bucks every year in ......oh yup, thats it...Washington...
And secondly, if you want to do something about it...actually run......
Also, if you had some actual numbers to back up your case....other than the limited or probable limited numbers of legal bucks that you have expressed, dont call cartoons a cheepshot and maybe you'd have some weight in the topic...the cheepshot is when you said....The dept of no fish or watchable wildlife??? huh....... :chuckle:
Post by: boneaddict on November 20, 2010, 08:24:29 PM
Post by: huntnnw on November 21, 2010, 12:58:15 AM
I to hunt out of state to see other country, adventure, hunt longer. Also the mule deer hunting in this state blows!! U can go to MT in some units and pass on 20 bucks a day that u would give a left nut to see here in WA during the general season, yeah we get a few every year here to drool over, nothing like UT,NV,WY and CO.. Whitetails on the other hand, this state has great whitetails, best in the west imho
Post by: Dave Workman on November 21, 2010, 06:57:42 PM
u could also get the combo, get a deer tag almost every year. plus you could hunt elk
I to hunt out of state to see other country, adventure, hunt longer. Also the mule deer hunting in this state blows!! U can go to MT in some units and pass on 20 bucks a day that u would give a left nut to see here in WA during the general season, yeah we get a few every year here to drool over, nothing like UT,NV,WY and CO.. Whitetails on the other hand, this state has great whitetails, best in the west imho
Exactly.
There is some good whitetail hunting here, provided the weather cooperates.
There could be better whitetail hunting here if the season ran through the Thanksgiving holiday weekend like it used to.
But be careful talking about it, lest you be accused of :cryriver:
=========================
Now, for some figures, which were requested:
According to the US FWS, Washington reported 336,652 licensed hunters in 1970
In 1980, prior to the imposition of Resource Allocation and regional elk tags, there were 360,684 licensed hunters
By 1990, after RA and regional tags: The number had dropped to 268,653
In 2000, that had declined to 214,969
In 2003, the last year for which FWS has data listed via the link below, the number was down to 194,308
You can find it all here: http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory.pdf (http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov/Subpages/LicenseInfo/HuntingLicCertHistory.pdf)
In 2009, FWS says Washington reported 197,260 licensed hunters (see: http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/browse.cfm (http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/browse.cfm))
Is that what you were looking for?
Post by: boneaddict on November 21, 2010, 07:01:25 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 21, 2010, 07:32:48 PM
u could also get the combo, get a deer tag almost every year. plus you could hunt elk
I to hunt out of state to see other country, adventure, hunt longer. Also the mule deer hunting in this state blows!! U can go to MT in some units and pass on 20 bucks a day that u would give a left nut to see here in WA during the general season, yeah we get a few every year here to drool over, nothing like UT,NV,WY and CO.. Whitetails on the other hand, this state has great whitetails, best in the west imho
Exactly.
There is some good whitetail hunting here, provided the weather cooperates.
There could be better whitetail hunting here if the season ran through the Thanksgiving holiday weekend like it used to.
Dave,
I have to disagree on that one. I think the shorter General season is part of what makes the quality of our whitetail herd so great. Nearly all of the great whitetail states have short general seasons that are outside of the rut. At the same time we have a lot more cover than a lot of those states so I will partially concede that the deer herd would probably still be ok. I would be more inclined to say give those days back but do it in late December. It would still make for a great hunt for the general season since the deer are in their late season feeding patterns but it wouldn't catch them at their most vulnerable time. Putting your greatest amount of hunters in the woods when the deer are the most vulnerable usually leads to a poor quality deer herd from what I have experienced. My home state of AR is an excellent example of that.
Post by: HUNTINCOUPLE on November 21, 2010, 10:05:21 PM
Post by: PolarBear on November 21, 2010, 10:09:53 PM
I will hunt washington on permits, but the regular hunts for all the yahoos suck!!!!!You aint trying hard enough.
I'm thinking about hitting Alabama again. Only a couple hundred $$ for tags and you can shoot a buck and 2 does per day. I pass on the does but a I wouldn't mind shooting a few decent bucks. Plus, you can hunt with a SPEAR!!
Post by: huntnnw on November 22, 2010, 05:55:22 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2010, 06:22:07 AM
Post by: WDFW-SUX on November 22, 2010, 06:37:37 AM
Post by: rasbo on November 22, 2010, 06:41:40 AM
Its interesting how everyone thinks our deer herd or hunting in this state sucks yet always want an extended season and hunts that occur during the rut.I cant afford to hunt out of state.But I do hear exactly what your saying from many guys..The animals are here,you just gotta work for them..I hear them say there are no blackies on the wetside to speak of.They are there,and some real pigs have come out this year..Just about anywhere here if ya get off the road,there is a ton of sign..I really believe hunting shows where the guys are taking deer or elk in a half hr show has spoiled many..Its called hunting....Lotta guys spend the bucks to go elsewhere but end up with the same size critters we have here...
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2010, 07:24:19 AM
Quote
If it isn't easy, count 75% of the "hunters" out.and I am glad for that.
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2010, 07:29:39 AM
Yes the deer herd in this state is in trouble. Seriously with some simple fixes.......not a problem.
Post by: krout81 on November 22, 2010, 07:38:44 AM
I have only hunted westside for the last 19 years. Have never not been with in 80-100 yards of deer and elk during the season. Have alyways gotten a deer when I hunted them, and I am 42% on elk. I have seen a handful of hunters in the woods and they walked right on by. There are less deer and elk, but they are still there. Until I got out and dont see any sign, or any deer and elk then I am a happy Washington hunter.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 09:34:50 AM
Quote
According to the US FWS, Washington reported 336,652 licensed hunters in 1970
In 1980, prior to the imposition of Resource Allocation and regional elk tags, there were 360,684 licensed hunters
By 1990, after RA and regional tags: The number had dropped to 268,653
In 2000, that had declined to 214,969
In 2003, the last year for which FWS has data listed via the link below, the number was down to 194,308
looking at licensed hunter numbers in isolation does not provide an accurate picture; it is most likely that that todays hunters, on average, hunt more days then the average tag holder in 1970 and are much more mobile and much more "motivated" In addition, you have to look at how the public/private land issue plays into it; it is most likely that there is a vast reduction in the amount of private ground the avg tag holder in WA has access today vs 1970. And, finally, in response to a declining number of deer, the department has lowered the avg season length from probably 16 days to 9 days, further concentrating the hunters.
here is some simple math to see what a very plausible scenario is:
1970: 360,000 tags; avg of 2 hunter days per tag; 33% of hunters hunted private ground; this means there were 720,000 hunter days; of which 475,000 hunter days were on public ground
Avg season length 16 days = 29,000 hunter days per season day
2009: 200,000 tags; avg of 4 hunter days per tag; 20% of hunter hunted private ground; this means there were 800,000 hunter days; of which 640,000 hunter days were on public ground
Avg season length 9 days = 71,000 hunter days per season day;
so, that is some easy and quick math to show how looking at just tag numbers in isolation can be deceiving; and how the deer herds are being put under even more pressure even with fewer deer tags, the trends I identiftied above are real, such as reductions in private ground hunting and increased hunter days per hunter;
it would be wonderful if there were still enough animals to simply "extend" the season out as has been suggested, but, this is simply not feasable;
if you take todays avg tag holder who is more dedicated, better equipped, the hunter population that is willing and able to spend more time in the field, and extend their opportunities out into late October/early Nov, you are going to have a slaughter;
So, the WDFW, because it cannot deal with the hunter backlash of reducing tag numbers, takes steps like shorten the seasons, which just concentrates the hunters even more; implements antler pt restrictions, which keeps people in the field longer (more hunter days again..........) and concentrates hunting on the more mature animals, etc
These are all parlor tricks which just exacerbate the problem!!
here's a solution:
cut the tag numbers so you get a 33% reduction in harvest levels (no doe tags for any weapon, period. unless targeted to ag areas or areas which do have too many deer)
extend the season out longer
get rid of the rut permits
elimination of all antler pt restrictions
this reduction in tag numbers, elimanation of antlerless tags, elimination of rut tags, and extension of the season, would result in a drastically improved "experience" in the field; it would increase buck numbers, increase buck age structure, increase total deer numbers, spread out the hunter numbers over a wider season;
it would give us all the experience we crave: seeing decent numbers of deer; decent numbers of bucks, and way less pumpkins on each ridge
you have to accept the reality that mule deer hunting isn't going "back to where it was" in our lifetimes; changing habitat conditions, increasing human populations, increasing predators, etc has changed the landscape forever
I mean, what are we going to have to do in the future; a 3 day deer season and 6 pt min antler restrictions?????
those "solutions" aren't working!!!! They are only making the situation worse
you need to harvest LESS bucks and ZERO does (unless needed to for overpopulation reasons) and the best way to do this is FEWER tags and FEWER people in the field.
would this solution get us back to the "way it was"??
NO; there is a new reality...........and we have to adjust to it.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2010, 09:42:49 AM
Its interesting how everyone thinks our deer herd or hunting in this state sucks yet always want an extended season and hunts that occur during the rut.
Well, I think you may misunderstand the argument.
There might be more success, or at least more opportunity for success, if the seasons were changed to a bit later.
A late whitetail hunt in late November and/or early December would certainly pass muster with me and most of the guys I know. I particularly liked hunting the Thanksgiving weekend, though because it was an opportunity for family outings, particularly someone who wanted to hunt with his kid who came home from college for the weekend...and full disclosure here, I don't have a kid in college and even when I did, he wasn't away, but right here at home.
As any honest GAME biologist would tell you, after the rut, bucks are "excess baggage" that compete with pregnant does as the winter wears on for available food.
I'm not calling for a wholesale slaughter of antlered mature deer. That would be insane. But for those who really enjoy their time afield and want to bring home some venison every year or two, they ought to have a genuine opportunity to do that.
And boneaddict...where did you see 500 bucks?
Location...location...location....
Post by: fair-chase on November 22, 2010, 09:54:24 AM
looking at licensed hunter numbers in isolation does not provide an accurate picture; it is most likely that that todays hunters, on average, hunt more days then the average tag holder in 1970 and are much more mobile and much more "motivated" In addition, you have to look at how the public/private land issue plays into it; it is most likely that there is a vast reduction in the amount of private ground the avg tag holder in WA has access today vs 1970. And, finally, in response to a declining number of deer, the department has lowered the avg season length from probably 16 days to 9 days, further concentrating the hunters.
here is some simple math to see what a very plausible scenario is:
1970: 360,000 tags; avg of 2 hunter days per tag; 33% of hunters hunted private ground; this means there were 720,000 hunter days; of which 475,000 hunter days were on public ground
Avg season length 16 days = 29,000 hunter days per season day
2009: 200,000 tags; avg of 4 hunter days per tag; 20% of hunter hunted private ground; this means there were 800,000 hunter days; of which 640,000 hunter days were on public ground
Avg season length 9 days = 71,000 hunter days per season day;
so, that is some easy and quick math to show how looking at just tag numbers in isolation can be deceiving; and how the deer herds are being put under even more pressure even with fewer deer tags, the trends I identiftied above are real, such as reductions in private ground hunting and increased hunter days per hunter;
it would be wonderful if there were still enough animals to simply "extend" the season out as has been suggested, but, this is simply not feasable;
if you take todays avg tag holder who is more dedicated, better equipped, the hunter population that is willing and able to spend more time in the field, and extend their opportunities out into late October/early Nov, you are going to have a slaughter;
So, the WDFW, because it cannot deal with the hunter backlash of reducing tag numbers, takes steps like shorten the seasons, which just concentrates the hunters even more; implements antler pt restrictions, which keeps people in the field longer (more hunter days again..........) and concentrates hunting on the more mature animals, etc
These are all parlor tricks which just exacerbate the problem!!
here's a solution:
cut the tag numbers so you get a 33% reduction in harvest levels (no doe tags for any weapon, period. unless targeted to ag areas or areas which do have too many deer)
extend the season out longer
get rid of the rut permits
elimination of all antler pt restrictions
this reduction in tag numbers, elimanation of antlerless tags, elimination of rut tags, and extension of the season, would result in a drastically improved "experience" in the field; it would increase buck numbers, increase buck age structure, increase total deer numbers, spread out the hunter numbers over a wider season;
it would give us all the experience we crave: seeing decent numbers of deer; decent numbers of bucks, and way less pumpkins on each ridge
you have to accept the reality that mule deer hunting isn't going "back to where it was" in our lifetimes; changing habitat conditions, increasing human populations, increasing predators, etc has changed the landscape forever
I mean, what are we going to have to do in the future; a 3 day deer season and 6 pt min antler restrictions?????
those "solutions" aren't working!!!! They are only making the situation worse
you need to harvest LESS bucks and ZERO does (unless needed to for overpopulation reasons) and the best way to do this is FEWER tags and FEWER people in the field.
would this solution get us back to the "way it was"??
NO; there is a new reality...........and we have to adjust to it.
That is a well thought out argument. But you will never, and I mean never get WDFW to voluntarily take a 33% decrease in deer tag sales. I doesn't matter what the benefits are, that is just too much revenue loss for them to even consider. Remember they are not in the business of managing our wildlife, just in the business of selling tags.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 10:20:28 AM
Quote
But you will never, and I mean never get WDFW to voluntarily take a 33% decrease in deer tag sales.
increase the tag cost by 33% and that solves the problem;
that is an increase of $15; to take a 3 day hunting trip with your family probably cost upwards of $500; that is a small increase to pay in order to have a much better experience
Post by: hoyt2002 on November 22, 2010, 11:07:10 AM
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2010, 11:17:58 AM
Something else to consider. How technology effects harvest such as the modernization of weapons, communication, the ability to get to a spot, optics, mapping systems, GPS, the interenet etc. AND the acceptance of many of us to utilize this technology.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 11:54:04 AM
Quote
How technology effects harvest such as the modernization of weapons, communication, the ability to get to a spot, optics, mapping systems, GPS, the interenet etc. AND the acceptance of many of us to utilize this technology.
I agree 100%; it is much easier to hunt longer, farther, harder today, AND to do most of the research from your computer before you even step foot out of the door.........thats why the 200,000 tag holders of today are so much different then the 360,000 tag holders of 1970.......more time in the field and more dedication to the sport.
Post by: fair-chase on November 22, 2010, 12:47:00 PM
Oh yeah, sorry if this thread got off topic.
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2010, 12:54:38 PM
Muleyguy, I completely agree with your assessment. It's about the only argument I have herd that makes any sense without having to go to a draw only system.
But his argument IS based on going to draw only for mule deer. He mentions a reduction in tag numbers- well, that's how you would get the reduction, by eliminating general seasons and going to mule deer hunting by draw only.
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 01:22:09 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 05:17:58 PM
QuoteIf it isn't easy, count 75% of the "hunters" out.and I am glad for that.
Me too. I like road hunters.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2010, 05:31:21 PM
This thread cracks me up, only guys from this state would be on a bandwagon advocating for less and less hunting time in the field, where most states are increasing hunter time and opportunity in the field. I think sometime when we think of how f'ed up this state is with the management of it's wildlife we probably should first look in the mirror. Honestly, if they raise the rates much more I will only hunt out of state. I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags and TWO turkey tags for $43...total. I just bought my 18 year old son ONE muzzle loader deer tag here for $45.20. :dunno:\\
Hey, Machias:
I resent that remark. I'm from this state, 4th generation, and IMHO people who advocate "less" are brain dead from drinking too much WDFW Kool Aid. This crap about permit hunting and raising license fees to compensate for the loss of revenue is the same kind of nutty reasoning we fought tooth and nail back when I was at the old F&H News back in the 1980s.
I used to hear that whine from one of the old agency directors; "we have to settle for less, we're the smallest state with the biggest population" yadda yadda yadda.. Translation: "We're going to do less, deliver mediocre results, and we want to keep hunters out of the woods so they won't see what we're not doing."
The "big" population stays in the city and swills latte. If they get farther than 10 yards off the sidewalk, pavement or a developed trail they are over their heads. They run into a guy packing a gun in the woods, they get the vapors and quickly try to put distance between themselves and us.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 05:51:28 PM
Get rid of "Resource Allocation" because not only did it, by design, reduce the number of hunters, it pits the remaining hunting interests against one another, also by design. So long as we compete with one another for whatever POS seasons the agency and their rubber stamp commissioners give us, we will not be united to hold them accountable.
I agree with you here. This state has the most splintered hunting population I have seen and now that you mention I believe this is one of the largest factors involved.
To be honest most hunters I know are not satisfied with their Game Department. Ohio is the only state I have seen where hunters and the Game Department are a cohesive team.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 22, 2010, 06:05:21 PM
It is incredible that you bring up Ohio. Several years ago, I did a comparison between Washington and Ohio for one of my editorials criticizing the WDFW.
Get rid of "Resource Allocation" because not only did it, by design, reduce the number of hunters, it pits the remaining hunting interests against one another, also by design. So long as we compete with one another for whatever POS seasons the agency and their rubber stamp commissioners give us, we will not be united to hold them accountable.
I agree with you here. This state has the most splintered hunting population I have seen and now that you mention I believe this is one of the largest factors involved.
To be honest most hunters I know are not satisfied with their Game Department. Ohio is the only state I have seen where hunters and the Game Department are a cohesive team.
Ohio is a state with approximately 20,000 square miles less land mass than Washington and far less public land on which to hunt.
Ohio has one species of deer. Washington has three.
At the time, Ohio's normal deer harvest during a one-week hunting season was approximately 90,000 deer. Washington's harvest was about half.
I think in Ohio they take more than 100,000 deer each season now, and in Washington? Don't ask.
In Ohio, they hunt with shotguns. We get to hunt with rifles.
And so it goes.
Post by: boneaddict on November 22, 2010, 07:02:06 PM
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 07:10:52 PM
This thread cracks me up, only guys from this state would be on a bandwagon advocating for less and less hunting time in the field, where most states are increasing hunter time and opportunity in the field. I think sometime when we think of how f'ed up this state is with the management of it's wildlife we probably should first look in the mirror. Honestly, if they raise the rates much more I will only hunt out of state. I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags and TWO turkey tags for $43...total. I just bought my 18 year old son ONE muzzle loader deer tag here for $45.20. :dunno:\\
Hey, Machias:
I resent that remark. I'm from this state, 4th generation, and IMHO people who advocate "less" are brain dead from drinking too much WDFW Kool Aid. This crap about permit hunting and raising license fees to compensate for the loss of revenue is the same kind of nutty reasoning we fought tooth and nail back when I was at the old F&H News back in the 1980s.
I used to hear that whine from one of the old agency directors; "we have to settle for less, we're the smallest state with the biggest population" yadda yadda yadda.. Translation: "We're going to do less, deliver mediocre results, and we want to keep hunters out of the woods so they won't see what we're not doing."
The "big" population stays in the city and swills latte. If they get farther than 10 yards off the sidewalk, pavement or a developed trail they are over their heads. They run into a guy packing a gun in the woods, they get the vapors and quickly try to put distance between themselves and us.
Dave you may resent that remark, but go back through this thread and you'll see why I said that. I think the best managed state for wildlife is Missouri, they also work closely with hunters and increase time in the woods every chance they get.
Post by: huntnnw on November 22, 2010, 07:22:10 PM
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 07:28:17 PM
Post by: Bofire on November 22, 2010, 07:30:48 PM
Just teasing!
Carl
Post by: Swiftkid on November 22, 2010, 07:57:57 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2010, 08:18:03 PM
I'm from this state, 4th generation, and IMHO people who advocate "less" are brain dead from drinking too much WDFW Kool Aid. This crap about permit hunting and raising license fees to compensate for the loss of revenue is the same kind of nutty reasoning we fought tooth and nail back when I was at the old F&H News back in the 1980s.
I used to hear that whine from one of the old agency directors; "we have to settle for less, we're the smallest state with the biggest population" yadda yadda yadda.. Translation: "We're going to do less, deliver mediocre results, and we want to keep hunters out of the woods so they won't see what we're not doing."
The "big" population stays in the city and swills latte. If they get farther than 10 yards off the sidewalk, pavement or a developed trail they are over their heads. They run into a guy packing a gun in the woods, they get the vapors and quickly try to put distance between themselves and us.
You must be living in the past Dave. Most of what you say is 100% wrong. We have decreasing populations of deer and elk, yet you want more liberal seasons. Nothing you say makes any sense. It may have sounded good 30 years ago, but Dave, this is the year 2010. Do you realize that? It's not 1975 anymore.
We have less habitat for deer and elk due to urban sprawl. We have increasing numbers of bears and cougars due to the people of this state voting to ban hound hunting and baiting. We have "Native Americans" taking advantage of their so called rights. We have more and more people wanting to hunt but less land open to hunting every year. We have longer seasons than ever before, with big game seasons and unlimited numbers of tags going from September 1st to December 31st. We have ATV's, inline muzzleloaders, compound bows, electronic rangefinders, cell phones, GPS, and internet message boards.
It's good that you're so passionate about what you believe in, but come on! I doubt if anyone at the WDFW takes anything you say seriously. And I wouldn't blame them. You're just way too far out in left field.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 08:29:01 PM
Quote
I just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tags
Quote
Ohio has one species of deer. Washington has three.
At the time, Ohio's normal deer harvest during a one-week hunting season was approximately 90,000 deer. Washington's harvest was about half.
I think in Ohio they take more than 100,000 deer each season now, and in Washington? Don't ask.
are you two seriously trying to compare WA state mule deer populations and hunter opportunities with Whitetail populations and hunter opportunities in Ohio and Missouri???
two completely different habitat requirements and two completely different deer species each with compeltely different characteristics;
You can't even compare the whitetail populations equally; when is the last time they had a devastating winter kill in missouri for whitetails?? Even in Ohio, they get a little more winter, but, nothing like we can get in our whitetail areas.
do you two realize that whitetails have adapted VERY well to human encroachment and can thrive in a much more diverse habitat then mule deer?? When was the last time you heard of drought in Missouri and Ohio?? Do you realize they get much more precipitation then our whitetail areas??
I guess I could go on and on.....please do not take this offensively, but, the idea that you can somehow compare whitetail deer management back East with mule deer management in the state of WA is completely off the deep end.
so, according to you two, what is going to solve this state's problem is more opportunities on an already stressed deer populations, and all of us singing kum bay ya and getting along??
What deer fairy is going to show up and magically sprinkle deer all over the place to make all this magic happen?
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 08:45:36 PM
QuoteI just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tagsQuoteOhio has one species of deer. Washington has three.
At the time, Ohio's normal deer harvest during a one-week hunting season was approximately 90,000 deer. Washington's harvest was about half.
I think in Ohio they take more than 100,000 deer each season now, and in Washington? Don't ask.
are you two seriously trying to compare WA state mule deer populations and hunter opportunities with Whitetail populations and hunter opportunities in Ohio and Missouri???
two completely different habitat requirements and two completely different deer species each with compeltely different characteristics;
You can't even compare the whitetail populations equally; when is the last time they had a devastating winter kill in missouri for whitetails?? Even in Ohio, they get a little more winter, but, nothing like we can get in our whitetail areas.
do you two realize that whitetails have adapted VERY well to human encroachment and can thrive in a much more diverse habitat then mule deer?? When was the last time you heard of drought in Missouri and Ohio?? Do you realize they get much more precipitation then our whitetail areas??
I guess I could go on and on.....please do not take this offensively, but, the idea that you can somehow compare whitetail deer management back East with mule deer management in the state of WA is completely off the deep end.
so, according to you two, what is going to solve this state's problem is more opportunities on an already stressed deer populations, and all of us singing kum bay ya and getting along??
What deer fairy is going to show up and magically sprinkle deer all over the place to make all this magic happen?
Your spot on there...but WDFW could take some lessons in hunter relations from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division.
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 08:46:10 PM
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2010, 09:01:23 PM
So I don't see how you can say they are working against hunters. What they are doing is trying to sell "opportunity" to the most people possible. They are selling quantity rather than quality. So to say our fish & wildlife department is doing a poor job because they don't give us enough opportunity- well that is wrong. They are poor because they give us TOO MUCH opportunity. They need to restrict the number of hunters more so that when we do get to hunt we have a quality experience. :twocents:
Post by: GermanShorthair on November 22, 2010, 09:09:33 PM
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 09:11:50 PM
There is no control over how many people hunt each GMU.
Your kidding right?
Post by: bobcat on November 22, 2010, 09:14:28 PM
There is no control over how many people hunt each GMU.
Your kidding right?
Wrong.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 09:16:37 PM
Quote
We're not comparing the whitetail population we're comparing game management and game departments
let's try this again.....you cannot compare how the missouri game department is doing vs the WA game department because the management challenges, the habitat, the deer species, the predators, the winters, the precipitation patterns, EVERYTHING is different between the two states; Missouri has the luxury of being able to offer seasons like that because their habitat, deer species, and lack of winter kill can sustain MUCH HIGHER populations of deer then can our state.
so your argument is that if we just opened the season up, and let everybody shoot 3 deer, and hunt during the rut, like missouri does, that we would magically have all these deer running around?
please explain to me, in biological terms, exactly how that management scheme is going to result in more deer in WA state?
you want to know the biggest problem with WDFW???
it is that they do not have the balls to stand up to people like you who try and use arguments like the above ones to justify your desire to hunt every year as much as you can.
Somebody has to be the "adult" in all of this and protect the resource.........that SHOULD be the WDFW........
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 09:23:04 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 09:25:10 PM
QuoteWe're not comparing the whitetail population we're comparing game management and game departments
let's try this again.....you cannot compare how the missouri game department is doing vs the WA game department because the management challenges, the habitat, the deer species, the predators, the winters, the precipitation patterns, EVERYTHING is different between the two states; Missouri has the luxury of being able to offer seasons like that because their habitat, deer species, and lack of winter kill can sustain MUCH HIGHER populations of deer then can our state.
so your argument is that if we just opened the season up, and let everybody shoot 3 deer, and hunt during the rut, like missouri does, that we would magically have all these deer running around?
please explain to me, in biological terms, exactly how that management scheme is going to result in more deer in WA state?
you want to know the biggest problem with WDFW???
it is that they do not have the balls to stand up to people like you who try and use arguments like the above ones to justify your desire to hunt every year as much as you can.
Somebody has to be the "adult" in all of this and protect the resource.........that SHOULD be the WDFW........
Hopefully it doesn't come down to who has the biggest balls but rather hunters and the game department working together as a team. That can happen with better communication. If that doesn't happen then we are all failing. I will admit. I don't envy WDFW. They have way more management challenges to deal with than a lot of other states...not to mention you have the Federal Government stepping in to tell us that we can't kill wolves. Obviously that is/will quickly become a management problem. One more example of the Fed abusing their power and forgetting their power comes from the people.
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 09:30:19 PM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 09:31:07 PM
QuoteWe're not comparing the whitetail population we're comparing game management and game departments
let's try this again.....you cannot compare how the missouri game department is doing vs the WA game department because the management challenges, the habitat, the deer species, the predators, the winters, the precipitation patterns, EVERYTHING is different between the two states; Missouri has the luxury of being able to offer seasons like that because their habitat, deer species, and lack of winter kill can sustain MUCH HIGHER populations of deer then can our state.
so your argument is that if we just opened the season up, and let everybody shoot 3 deer, and hunt during the rut, like missouri does, that we would magically have all these deer running around?
please explain to me, in biological terms, exactly how that management scheme is going to result in more deer in WA state?
you want to know the biggest problem with WDFW???
it is that they do not have the balls to stand up to people like you who try and use arguments like the above ones to justify your desire to hunt every year as much as you can.
Somebody has to be the "adult" in all of this and protect the resource.........that SHOULD be the WDFW........
I don't think he meant to do the exact same thing as Missouri. I think he meant WDFW could do a better job managing game and working with hunters (but not to the detriment of game). I don't think you disagree with that.
I will say I have heard Missouri guys complain about their biologists and the Antler Restrictions.
Post by: muleyguy on November 22, 2010, 10:00:53 PM
states like missouri have the luxury of much easier game managment because their habitat is in such good condition and they have few if any predators and little or no winter kill;
and, what is historical fact is that much of the whitetails were eliminated from missouri in the early 1900's from overharvest; what restored the herds and let them flourish was very STRICT regulations on hunting.
if you read their website it states all of this; I can take the time to post the data, but, the data is clear from them; they are not doing anything special in deer management (other then using hunting seasons very precisely to control deer populations) because they do not have to, as their habitat and non-hunter mortality is essentially zero.
we have poor habitat (much of the reason for this cannot be solved by the WDFW); we have much harsher winters (cannot be solved by the WDFW) and we have many more predators (some of this can be solved by WDFW); we have migratory big game populations that need critical wintering areas which happen to be in population areas (WDFW cannot solve this).
the primary "tool" the WDFW (and every other game department in the US) has is length of hunting seasons and tag numbers; what is clear, is that what solved Missouri's deer problems earlier this century was strict restrictions on hunting harvest; they rebuilt their deer herds, and took active managment of deer harvests from that point on; this has given them the solid base of deer populations that they have today.
we need to do the same thing; we need strict controls on harvest levels to stabilize the population so we can have time to work on the other factors which are long term factors, and, honestly, some of them might not be solvable;
I guess my question to you would be simple: how do you propose the WDFW solve the mule deer problems in this state? or do you even believe there is a problem in this state with mule deer numbers?
I have offered specific ideas; what specifically does the WDFW need to do?
Post by: huntnnw on November 22, 2010, 10:34:24 PM
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 10:42:43 PM
For specific things to help the deer herds I would say the first order of business would be to stop the doe harvest, that was one of the thing MO did in the beginning. Stop the choose your weapon requirement, all this does is pit us against each other, and open up the entire state. I'm not advocating the whole sale slaughter, your still only allowed one deer. Stop cherry picking GMUs and open the state up. Enhance the existing habitat to support those deer in harsh winters. Most Missouri public lands are partially farmed with a good portion of the crops left after harvest for winter feed. It's not just big game I'm talking about it's the whole management, small game, upland, furbearers they don't do a very good job on so many fronts, IMO. A perfect example is the Dept outlawing a management tool coyote hunting with dogs, because they deem it socially unacceptable, making game management decisions based on a few people in the department's "feeling" related to the Michael Vick story, not scientific reasoning. Especially after they'd already had one effective management tool taken away by the voters, trapping. Which in turn puts more pressure on the deer herd. Want to help the mule deer population? Kill a boatload of coyotes! Studies have shown they have a massive impact on fawn survival.
Bobcat, I always respect your point of view, I mean that sincerely, but saying they don't control the number of folks hunting a GMU is ludicrous, they control it because they have us ALL crammed into a couple of GMUs, they have total control over the numbers!!
Post by: Machias on November 22, 2010, 10:48:30 PM
So muleyguy and bobcat, tell me how we fix this state's wildlife management? Give me the whole concept that repairs it all so we achieve the potential this state has? Make us a mecca of big game, small game and upland hunting. My children really need you guys to succeed, and I mean that.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 11:03:12 PM
Motivation for me to go out of state is simple. If I see a deer, any deer, in Washington then it was a good day. If I go to Idaho, for example, and don't see more than 6 deer it was a bad day.
It is very rare that I don't see at least a few deer a day when I hunt in Washington. In some areas more than others.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 22, 2010, 11:04:18 PM
Motivation for me to go out of state is simple. If I see a deer, any deer, in Washington then it was a good day. If I go to Idaho, for example, and don't see more than 6 deer it was a bad day.
When I hunted in some parts of Arkansas I could go several weeks without seeing a deer so I am in heaven.
Post by: boneaddict on November 23, 2010, 02:12:05 AM
If you open an all out assualt on predators, then game will flourish, and no you don't have to worry about whiping them out.
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 23, 2010, 08:08:38 AM
Its all about predator control. This state has always loved the predator. Taking away hound hunting was one of the worse things they did. now they are going to trump that with wolf management or the lack of. Protect the red tailed hawk and kiss the quail and pheasants good bye. Its the way this state operates.:yeah:
If you open an all out assualt on predators, then game will flourish, and no you don't have to worry about whiping them out.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 08:22:19 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 23, 2010, 08:30:29 AM
How many states do you know of that allow the killing of hawks?
None because yet again they are federally protected. The Feds are trying to take away the peoples (states) ability to manage wildlife. If the state thinks there are too many hawks they should have the power to authorize a season.
Post by: bobcat on November 23, 2010, 08:36:29 AM
Post by: DBHAWTHORNE on November 23, 2010, 08:38:12 AM
The way I understand it is that if upland birds have the proper habitat, a few hawks will not have a serious impact on their numbers. Look at states like South Dakota with all the pheasants and other upland birds they have. I bet they have plenty of hawks but the difference is they have the necessary cover to hide from those hawks. So we may have poor upland bird hunting in most parts of the state but that is because the habitat is poor as well. I wouldn't blame it on the hawks.
Agreed. I wish they spent as much time improving and protecting the upland bird habitat as they do the hawks habitat.
Post by: Machias on November 23, 2010, 10:18:27 AM
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2010, 06:50:51 PM
Part of the problem is guys either won't or can't see what the real culprit is. They have this saying someone came up with a long time ago and for whatever reason the hunters of this state swallowed it hook line and sinker. We're the smallest western state with the most population. THAT is NOT the reason for the overcrowding and continued loss of hunting time in the field. It's pitting each user group against each other, all fighting for THEIR time in the woods and being CRAMMED into the same FEW GMUs. THAT is one of the biggest things that ails this state.
Machias moves to the head of the class.
You have indeed cracked the code!
Resource allocation is designed to keep user groups at each other's throats, vying for a gradually shrinking piece of pie...
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2010, 07:04:03 PM
QuoteI just went to Missouri and got FOUR deer tagsQuoteOhio has one species of deer. Washington has three.
At the time, Ohio's normal deer harvest during a one-week hunting season was approximately 90,000 deer. Washington's harvest was about half.
I think in Ohio they take more than 100,000 deer each season now, and in Washington? Don't ask.
are you two seriously trying to compare WA state mule deer populations and hunter opportunities with Whitetail populations and hunter opportunities in Ohio and Missouri???
two completely different habitat requirements and two completely different deer species each with compeltely different characteristics;
You can't even compare the whitetail populations equally; when is the last time they had a devastating winter kill in missouri for whitetails?? Even in Ohio, they get a little more winter, but, nothing like we can get in our whitetail areas.
do you two realize that whitetails have adapted VERY well to human encroachment and can thrive in a much more diverse habitat then mule deer?? When was the last time you heard of drought in Missouri and Ohio?? Do you realize they get much more precipitation then our whitetail areas??
I guess I could go on and on.....please do not take this offensively, but, the idea that you can somehow compare whitetail deer management back East with mule deer management in the state of WA is completely off the deep end.
so, according to you two, what is going to solve this state's problem is more opportunities on an already stressed deer populations, and all of us singing kum bay ya and getting along??
What deer fairy is going to show up and magically sprinkle deer all over the place to make all this magic happen?
Nice try but no cigar.
Ohio has one species.
Washington has three.
And how did Missouri get into this conversation? You brought Missouri in, I didn't
Washington has tons more habitat than Ohio and they have some pretty nasty winters there on occasion, same as us.
Washington has tons more PUBLIC LAND than Ohio, and why we don't take advantage of that is astonishing.
If Ohio can excel with a single deer species, what are we doing with THREE species? A lot of that precip in Ohio is snow in the winter.. We have snow too.
If Ohio can produce annual deer harvests like that from largely private land, WTF is going on when we have all of that public land?
And yes, Washington has a lot more predators. The greenies and idiots sort of made that happen. I advocate shooting coyotes on sight. I'm also a keen advocate of hunting black bears and cougars with hounds. And I never saw a wolf I'd want to invite home.
Post by: Dave Workman on November 23, 2010, 07:29:42 PM
You must be living in the past Dave. Most of what you say is 100% wrong. We have decreasing populations of deer and elk, yet you want more liberal seasons. Nothing you say makes any sense. It may have sounded good 30 years ago, but Dave, this is the year 2010. Do you realize that? It's not 1975 anymore.
We have less habitat for deer and elk due to urban sprawl. We have increasing numbers of bears and cougars due to the people of this state voting to ban hound hunting and baiting. We have "Native Americans" taking advantage of their so called rights. We have more and more people wanting to hunt but less land open to hunting every year. We have longer seasons than ever before, with big game seasons and unlimited numbers of tags going from September 1st to December 31st. We have ATV's, inline muzzleloaders, compound bows, electronic rangefinders, cell phones, GPS, and internet message boards.
It's good that you're so passionate about what you believe in, but come on! I doubt if anyone at the WDFW takes anything you say seriously. And I wouldn't blame them. You're just way too far out in left field.
No, I live in Washington state, and the problem isn't with WDFW taking me seriously, they don't seem to take anybody seriously. Except maybe wolf advocates or dickey bird lovers. And I know what year it is.
We saw the decline of hunting begin when the agency changed its name from GAME department to WILDLIFE department.
As for having more hunters, you must have missed the statistics I ran a couple of pages back. We've got — according to USFWS data based on state license sales — about half, maybe 55 percent of the hunters we had in 1975.
If our herds are shrinking, then why do YOU think there are all of these permits and all of these seasons "from Sept. 1 to Dec.. 31?"
You cannot defend the WDFW by claiming there are shrinking herds and more hunters. That argument simply doesn't pass the smell test, and it didn't back in 1975, either, when there actually were more hunters.
I never said we don't have a predator problem. Quite the opposite. Cougars, bears, coyotes...the fur huggers passed that asinine ban on hound hunting. It's time to pressure the Legislature into removing that ban entirely. They can do it legally. I don't think that ban could be passed again.
And don't get me started on tribal hunting.
But this is still Washington, with gazillions of acres of public land, much of it wilderness within our national forests; places where deer and elk enjoy their summer range.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 23, 2010, 07:39:19 PM
Please keep up the bitching so that I am 100% convinced that I should instead move to Salt Lake City or Albuquerque 8)
Post by: Dave Workman on November 24, 2010, 02:08:30 PM
Wow people. You are making me think twice about putting in a transfer from Arizona back up to Washington...
Please keep up the bitching so that I am 100% convinced that I should instead move to Salt Lake City or Albuquerque 8)
There are certainly more deer in Utah and probably in New Mexico!
;)
Post by: Bean Counter on November 24, 2010, 07:23:19 PM
Post by: kramer on November 24, 2010, 08:38:03 PM
Post by: muleyguy on November 24, 2010, 10:55:26 PM
Quote
You cannot defend the WDFW by claiming there are shrinking herds and more hunters. That argument simply doesn't pass the smell test, and it didn't back in 1975, either, when there actually were more hunters.
let's simplify the argument, and take the argument one item at a time.....
do you understand the concept of "hunters days per hunter"??
is it the same as 1970, decreasing, or, increasing??
is there more private ground available in 2010 or 1970 for the avg hunter to hunt on??
three simple questions, just answer them, and then we can take the discussion from there