Post by: Superhunter333 on December 19, 2010, 04:43:16 PM
Post by: Bigtine96 on December 19, 2010, 04:48:37 PM
Post by: SkookumHntr on December 19, 2010, 05:07:09 PM
Post by: carpsniperg2 on December 19, 2010, 05:09:41 PM
Post by: BlackRidge on December 19, 2010, 05:12:03 PM
no thanks.
Post by: Hunterman on December 19, 2010, 06:18:30 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: go4itlab on December 19, 2010, 07:04:05 PM
Post by: WDFW Hates ME!!! on December 19, 2010, 07:11:08 PM
I voted no because it is about more than killing an elk.I enjoy hunting with the family and the friends with the opportunity to harvest an elk every year.
Those that voted yes i ask why?
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2010, 07:21:41 PM
And leave more for the poachers/tribes to plunder while the odds for the rest of us bagging one (in a given decade) go down...?
no thanks.
I like being able to get out into the woods for the chance to hunt. Every part about it---scouting, marking my trails, moving in gear, getting the rifle ready. I don't want to hope a computer is going to let me go once a decade. I don't even have that good of luck, might as well add those animals to the once in a lifetime list. What would I do with all my gear? No real reason to keep it around if I'm only allowed to hunt every ten years.
Post by: bobcat on December 19, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Look at what we have for a general season on the eastside of the state: spike only, with a success rate of around 5% for most GMU's. I'd rather see the number of hunters cut in half (by limited permit hunting) and have it be open for any bull, so a guy could actually go on an actual elk hunt instead of just a camping trip.
We could have some great elk hunting if hunters would be willing to accept not being able to have an elk tag in their pocket every single year. In years that you don't draw a permit you could still go hunting with others who did draw a permit. Or you could just spend more time hunting deer, bears, birds, predators, etc.
The number of permits could be very high still- high enough that everyone could hunt every other year.
Post by: Hunterman on December 19, 2010, 07:37:53 PM
Hunterman(Tony)
Post by: chester on December 19, 2010, 07:41:11 PM
Post by: huntandjeep on December 19, 2010, 07:50:58 PM
Post by: Backstrap on December 19, 2010, 08:34:27 PM
I voted yes.
Look at what we have for a general season on the eastside of the state: spike only, with a success rate of around 5% for most GMU's. I'd rather see the number of hunters cut in half (by limited permit hunting) and have it be open for any bull, so a guy could actually go on an actual elk hunt instead of just a camping trip.
We could have some great elk hunting if hunters would be willing to accept not being able to have an elk tag in their pocket every single year. In years that you don't draw a permit you could still go hunting with others who did draw a permit. Or you could just spend more time hunting deer, bears, birds, predators, etc.
The number of permits could be very high still- high enough that everyone could hunt every other year.
Yeah, what he said. If you don't get draw, you can focus on something else, instead of ongoing mediocre hunting.
Post by: howlow on December 19, 2010, 09:36:19 PM
Post by: Superhunter333 on December 19, 2010, 09:46:49 PM
Post by: grundy53 on December 19, 2010, 09:56:18 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on December 19, 2010, 10:04:41 PM
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 19, 2010, 10:28:51 PM
I voted yes.:tup: :yeah: :yeah:
Look at what we have for a general season on the eastside of the state: spike only, with a success rate of around 5% for most GMU's. I'd rather see the number of hunters cut in half (by limited permit hunting) and have it be open for any bull, so a guy could actually go on an actual elk hunt instead of just a camping trip.
We could have some great elk hunting if hunters would be willing to accept not being able to have an elk tag in their pocket every single year. In years that you don't draw a permit you could still go hunting with others who did draw a permit. Or you could just spend more time hunting deer, bears, birds, predators, etc.
The number of permits could be very high still- high enough that everyone could hunt every other year.
Post by: Alan K on December 19, 2010, 10:31:39 PM
Don't know much of the east sides problems aside from Indians and poor spike recruitment.
Post by: huntnnw on December 19, 2010, 10:40:11 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 20, 2010, 04:21:00 AM
The state has done quite a job of dangling bulls in front of hunters in an effort to sell permits and create animosity between hunters.
If the E. side was like the wet side we wouldn't be having this conversation... ALL hunters should be able to hunt every year with the chance at an elk.
If the e side was 5 or hell 6... point or better would we be here?
Think about this.... Which bull has a better escapement chance? a spike or a 5 point?
ROAD CLOSURES AND ANTLER RESTRICTIONS LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE....
Ask the state why the difference between east and west? Answer: There is more cover in the west?? OK so close some DAMN ROADS and plant trees. :bash:
Escapement need not be in the form of limiting hunters.
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2010, 07:21:51 AM
ALL hunters should be able to hunt every year with the chance at an elk.
But why? ???
Why don't other states let unlimited numbers of people hunt elk every year? States such as Arizona, California, Oregon, Montana, Nevada, and Utah? Why is Washington so much better that we should have no limits on the number of hunters and the number of elk harvested every year?
Post by: C-Money on December 20, 2010, 07:30:07 AM
Post by: boneaddict on December 20, 2010, 07:33:40 AM
Post by: Buckrub on December 20, 2010, 07:33:53 AM
Elk have cover on the west side the WDFW states.... so lets plants some trees and close some roads, stop unlimited cattle grazing and manage the herd accordingly.... If the state manages escapement rather than hunters all hunters would have the chance. At least it did when I was a kid with twice as many hunters??
You could lock up the entire east side and give out ten permits and all ten wouldn't get filled under current management.
Post by: high country on December 20, 2010, 07:37:03 AM
here in washington you can't go 100 miles anywhere in a line without being in elk country.....maybe even 50 miles. we have relatively few elk, but they are spread over a great area. we do have those concentrated areas that need to be protected, but to group the whole state as single group is like saying everyone that lives on the west side is a liberal that wants to destroy this country.....it simply does not work for the whole state.
Post by: high country on December 20, 2010, 07:41:09 AM
Why does the westside have unlimited hunters with three point or better and the hunting is fine?...According to the state!escapemnet is a measurement of hunter success vs elk survival. if you increase the hunter chances, you decrease the elk survival unless you limit the area or the specifics of the species hunted. so as a byproduct, managing hunters is managing elk.
Elk have cover on the west side the WDFW states.... so lets plants some trees and close some roads, stop unlimited cattle grazing and manage the herd accordingly.... If the state manages escapement rather than hunters all hunters would have the chance. At least it did when I was a kid with twice as many hunters??
You could lock up the entire east side and give out ten permits and all ten wouldn't get filled under current management.
a good starting point would be to stop imigration. more people mean less land per human, which means less land per elk....which means.......
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2010, 07:41:55 AM
Post by: krout81 on December 20, 2010, 07:48:35 AM
Each side of the state is completly different so I agree with 2 different approaches to the issues. If you apply for a eastside premit you cant hunt the westside and same should go for westside permit apps cant hunt east.
Post by: high country on December 20, 2010, 07:56:22 AM
so I am with you. lets make nonresident hunters draw.....there, we are now modeling after one ofthe most sucessful management states in the nation.
Post by: Buckrub on December 20, 2010, 08:13:04 AM
Why would the state and feds log the rimrock area? wildfire?
Elk can and do live around people with cover... escapement is the key and if it means making it harder for some to hunt then so be it.
Better to make it harder to hunt for escapement than to not hunt at all.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_map_06_WA_Morton_elk (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_map_06_WA_Morton_elk)
Post by: Buckrub on December 20, 2010, 08:21:11 AM
http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,63565.0.html (http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,63565.0.html)
Post by: AKBowman on December 20, 2010, 04:44:27 PM
HELL NO!!! If you want to hunt in an all draw state move to Arizona..
Hunterman(Tony)
Or Nevada
Post by: AKBowman on December 20, 2010, 04:50:37 PM
I think it should stay the same though and they should concentrate on patrolling for poachers, keeping a closer eye on the amount of native killed animals and predator control.
Post by: high country on December 20, 2010, 07:06:29 PM
Post by: jbeaumont21 on December 20, 2010, 07:19:38 PM
you guys on the wet side need to stop confusing the east side with the middle. when I hunted the wet side, I was appalled by the number of roads. here we have a couple roads that you would die before you walked to another one.
Yeah it really sucks with all the roads especially when they open the gates. You can take off hiking in an area that looks real elky just to come to another road with a truck driving by.
Post by: bearhunter99 on December 20, 2010, 07:28:20 PM
Making non-resident draw only would never really help in my opinion. Have you looked at the non-resident tag prices? Who in their right mind would pay that kind of money to hunt in this state? I'll bet the number of non-residents in WA is very very low compared to other states.
:twocents:
Post by: elksnout on December 20, 2010, 07:28:42 PM
Post by: Bob33 on December 20, 2010, 07:52:01 PM
I drew a bull elk tag in Oregon this year for the Snake River unit. It took seven years to draw. However, I could hunt that unit every year for a spike bull. It's a draw, but there were 330 permits and only 64 first choice applicants. Essentially it becomes an "over the counter" tag if you're willing to apply as a first choice.
Washington has a lot of people, and fewer elk than some of the other western states. I just read where Wyoming has three big game animals for every resident, while Washington has 16 residents for every big game animal: that's a animal/human ratio of about 50 times greater in Wyoming.
I grew up hunting elk every year with my dad. I never saw a legal elk until I'd hunted about 12 years. I have great memories. It would be unfortunate to see that experience taken away from today's hunters but I could understand why it might be necessary.
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2010, 08:09:18 PM
Post by: Tman on December 20, 2010, 08:13:38 PM
Post by: rosscrazyelk on December 20, 2010, 09:02:59 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 20, 2010, 09:05:06 PM
There are alot of good reasonings being talked about on here but I vote no and for one reason only. Besides the hunting part I love the people that I hunt with. It is more then the hunt for me , it is spending time with my friends in the woods. If it goes to draw only and I get drawn and they don't it just would not be the same.
That's why they would have the option of applying as a group, so you all get drawn, or none of you get drawn.
Post by: 6x6in6 on December 20, 2010, 09:11:07 PM
If it stays as is, my out of state draw odds would go down because some of you would look more frequently to going out of state. :chuckle:
Post by: krout81 on December 20, 2010, 09:17:15 PM
Read this article and read between the lines from the biologists.... interesting read.Great Article in my opinion. Makes sense to me, but I agree with other dont let just any non-resident bet a tag. Set a limit and give out permits. There is enough money coming in from the WA hunters.
Why would the state and feds log the rimrock area? wildfire?
Elk can and do live around people with cover... escapement is the key and if it means making it harder for some to hunt then so be it.
Better to make it harder to hunt for escapement than to not hunt at all.
http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_map_06_WA_Morton_elk (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=h_map_06_WA_Morton_elk)
Post by: bullcanyon on December 21, 2010, 09:21:45 AM
Post by: grundy53 on December 21, 2010, 10:20:55 AM
Absolutely not! We have really good hunting on the west side. I have 0 complaints about the elk hunting. If I do not fill my tag it's my own fault.
I totally agree about the elk hunting on the westside
Post by: Buckrub on December 21, 2010, 10:30:14 AM
Absolutely not! We have really good hunting on the west side. I have 0 complaints about the elk hunting. If I do not fill my tag it's my own fault.
Sooooo... Why the difference in management approach? east vs. west? cover for escapement?
Maybe there should be a high fence on the crest trail? I'll keep hunting big bulls while you guys keep arguing about permits...LOL
Post by: bullcanyon on December 21, 2010, 12:37:31 PM
Post by: elkbuster on December 21, 2010, 01:15:57 PM
I voted yes because it would improve our elk heards and chances of actually shooting an elk. Elk hunters who tag out every year are few and far between. As it is we have the worst elk hunting in the west when we could have great elk hunting if hunters would just give up a couple years. insted of 5000 hunters trying to shoot an elk out of a herd of 100 elk we would have quality elk hunting. but it will never happen
I would only agree if the State of Washington nullified the "Stevens Treaty" with the tribes of WA and the native americans could not devastate the elk herds like they are now. Then and only then would I be more willing to accept draw hunting or even every other year hunting to improve the elk herds of WA and odds of getting an elk. :twocents:
Post by: whacker1 on December 21, 2010, 03:20:38 PM
I know a few Oregon Residents that quit hunting, because of the draw system in Oregon. It was the straw that broke the camels back for those individuals. They already had issues with hunting for other reasons, but not being able to hunt every year pushed them over the threshold.
Others only hunt Oregon every few years, and hunt out of state for the rest. I like the idea in concept, but where the rubber hits the road, I would prefer to hunt every year. We have a lot of residents in this state that choose to hunt elk, yes the number of bodies elk hunting would go down if we went to a draw system for the season as well as going forward, and success should increase over time. It would be harder to recruit youth into the sport if you can't hunt every year. It would put additional pressure on deer hunting if deer were left as a general tag, and poaching would increase. license revenue would also potentially fall if the system were not put in place perfectly and the rest of us would carry the increased costs for the revenue lost by those that quit hunting. I see a lot of pros and cons, but the cons to this one are too many.
Post by: Bob33 on December 21, 2010, 03:29:48 PM
Post by: alanger on December 21, 2010, 03:36:33 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 21, 2010, 03:57:05 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 21, 2010, 04:52:11 PM
Might be for the goal of 12 bulls per 100 cows? hard to achieve that goal with a low spike recruitment.
Wolf introduction will be a far greater threat than any mismanagement of the wdfw.... :yike:
You eastern boys been hunting spikes all along when you could have been hunting bulls like us west boys.
Tell me again how much trouble the elk herds are in? and why the dept. is reducing population?
We have been snookered in the guise of bull management for permit money.
Post by: sakoshooter on December 22, 2010, 09:54:53 PM
Not even getting the chance to go is just wrong and I hope this state never goes to that.
Post by: Greyson on December 23, 2010, 06:35:14 AM
It won't happen, though. WDFW makes money more off of tag sales than it would off of permit application sales.
Figure that they sold 100,000 tags at $25.00 (elk and deer tag option vs. license and deer tag) which equals $2.5 million.
Now figure they could sell 200,000 permit draw applications at around $6.00 each. That's only $120,000.
Money is the bottom line. That money is going to be more important now that the budget is being cut the way it is.
Road closures seem like a cheap and easy option, too!
Post by: teanawayslayer on December 23, 2010, 06:45:34 AM
Post by: high country on December 23, 2010, 07:50:43 AM
Post by: Buckrub on December 23, 2010, 08:06:56 AM
The elk aren't in trouble... the hunter on the other hand :dunno:
90 /10 rule goes beyond fishermen...
Post by: 724wd on December 23, 2010, 03:39:22 PM
Post by: JCClement on December 23, 2010, 11:35:14 PM
I would like to believe this could happen with all entities and hunters in the state for the good of the game. Maybe I am too optimistic. :dunno:
Post by: agchawk on December 24, 2010, 12:38:32 PM
Just my opinion.
Post by: Buckrub on December 24, 2010, 04:22:00 PM
I am pretty much done with this topic...one last comment.
I can't believe hunters would sacrifice other hunters to enhance thier chance at a bull. Seems selfish :dunno:
Antler restriction (like the rest of the state) enhance escapement... (close roads, reforest, shorten seasons)
Hunting shouldn't be about improving hunters chances... it should be herd management to insure future hunting for ALL.
my last :twocents:
Post by: hunterofelk on December 24, 2010, 05:11:17 PM
Post by: Jack Diamond on December 24, 2010, 06:17:26 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 24, 2010, 08:35:26 PM
"better quality hunt with fewer hunters"
I am pretty much done with this topic...one last comment.
I can't believe hunters would sacrifice other hunters to enhance thier chance at a bull. Seems selfish :dunno:
Antler restriction (like the rest of the state) enhance escapement... (close roads, reforest, shorten seasons)
Hunting shouldn't be about improving hunters chances... it should be herd management to insure future hunting for ALL.
my last :twocents:
Permit only elk hunting wouldn't be about improving hunter's chances. It would be about having healthy elk herds. Good hunting would just be a benefit of that. It's pretty obvious the Colockum elk aren't doing well when we have a "true spike" only season.
Post by: BlackRidge on December 24, 2010, 09:23:17 PM
"better quality hunt with fewer hunters"
I am pretty much done with this topic...one last comment.
I can't believe hunters would sacrifice other hunters to enhance thier chance at a bull. Seems selfish :dunno:
Antler restriction (like the rest of the state) enhance escapement... (close roads, reforest, shorten seasons)
Hunting shouldn't be about improving hunters chances... it should be herd management to insure future hunting for ALL.
my last :twocents:
Permit only elk hunting wouldn't be about improving hunter's chances. It would be about having healthy elk herds. Good hunting would just be a benefit of that. It's pretty obvious the Colockum elk aren't doing well when we have a "true spike" only season.
I'd support the idea more, if a tougher stance was taken on poachers/tribe members illegally taking them. Seems we're being forced to deal with a sh*tty situation they've help to create
Post by: buckhorn2 on December 24, 2010, 09:54:40 PM
Post by: Buckrub on December 27, 2010, 05:52:40 AM
"Permit only elk hunting wouldn't be about improving hunter's chances. It would be about having healthy elk herds. Good hunting would just be a benefit of that. It's pretty obvious the Colockum elk aren't doing well when we have a "true spike" only season."
The only problem with the clockum herd is access...close some friggin roads and see what happens.
Turn the management over to me... hunters may bitch about access but I would ensure escapement.
Post by: Buckrub on December 27, 2010, 08:15:49 AM
I wonder who posted this on another thread?? :dunno: maybe Bobcat? The one who said this at the start of this thread..
Bobcat says: I voted yes.
Look at what we have for a general season on the eastside of the state: spike only, with a success rate of around 5% for most GMU's. I'd rather see the number of hunters cut in half (by limited permit hunting) and have it be open for any bull, so a guy could actually go on an actual elk hunt instead of just a camping trip.
We could have some great elk hunting if hunters would be willing to accept not being able to have an elk tag in their pocket every single year. In years that you don't draw a permit you could still go hunting with others who did draw a permit. Or you could just spend more time hunting deer, bears, birds, predators, etc.
The number of permits could be very high still- high enough that everyone could hunt every other year. "
Sorry Bobcat...had do do it...buckrub out
Post by: NWwildman on December 27, 2010, 09:43:02 AM
Post by: trophyhunt on December 27, 2010, 02:07:10 PM
Post by: Jake T on December 27, 2010, 05:24:46 PM
that way the most you would every lose out on would be one season, but you'd have a chance at every year. tag fees would probably go up to preserve the revenue.
another thought...do you think going to draw only would make a lot of people mad and increase the number of poaching incidents?
Post by: bullcanyon on December 27, 2010, 05:55:58 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 27, 2010, 06:08:19 PM
another thought...do you think going to draw only would make a lot of people mad and increase the number of poaching incidents?
Not necessarily. I would think that there would be a lot more kids and wives encouraged to get licenses/tags.
Post by: ing on December 27, 2010, 06:27:22 PM
Post by: True Sportsman on December 27, 2010, 06:50:07 PM
Post by: True Sportsman on December 27, 2010, 06:57:34 PM
I can't believe the number of yes votes either. I'm sure a bunch are guys that put in for east side hunts and don't hunt without a permit anyways, but I bet that a pile of them are guys that spend a lot of time in the truck or less than 1/2 mile from the truck. Why should the group of guys that are willing to go out and actually hunt be punished because you think a permit will magically put the elk right off the road? Uphill side to boot. YOU are still going to eat tag soup boys. It's still hunting. Not supposed to be easy. This state isn't required to provide opportunity for the LAZY! As long as the harvest numbers are where they want them. Than there is no reason to change anything. If you want a better quality experience you have to earn it. That's something that apparently some of you aren't willing to do.
I agree with you 100%
Post by: Sawbuck on December 27, 2010, 07:40:34 PM
I can't believe the number of yes votes either. I'm sure a bunch are guys that put in for east side hunts and don't hunt without a permit anyways, but I bet that a pile of them are guys that spend a lot of time in the truck or less than 1/2 mile from the truck. Why should the group of guys that are willing to go out and actually hunt be punished because you think a permit will magically put the elk right off the road? Uphill side to boot. YOU are still going to eat tag soup boys. It's still hunting. Not supposed to be easy. This state isn't required to provide opportunity for the LAZY! As long as the harvest numbers are where they want them. Than there is no reason to change anything. If you want a better quality experience you have to earn it. That's something that apparently some of you aren't willing to do.:yeah:
Its absolutely crazy to think that a draw only system would allow you to be drawn every other year. If they gave out that many permits they may as well open it up to any bull and save us all our permit fees.
Post by: krout81 on December 27, 2010, 08:50:47 PM
KILL THE WOLVES :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun: :mgun:
Post by: Buckrub on December 28, 2010, 08:12:31 AM
One has to ask themselves why antler restriction with almost every aspect of washington with the exclusion of prime eastern elk?
$$$$$$ the state would love to go to permit only and make one purchase a license with a permit application.
That system would insure their job was made much easier by limiting the number of permits based on tribal harvest.
You might hunt every ten years! or worse.
Me...
I would gladly pay more for a license and tag with antler restriction management for all washington to offset permit $$ loss... close roads for escapement, reforest for escapement if needed, shorten seasons for escapement, and leave the permit system for cow elk and some prime hunts based on the RUT.
Look at the bull harvest for the gmu's in question? Other than some spikes at the feeding station is there a real spike escapement study?
I will never quit fighting for hunters and the elk... I will always question some who want permit only in order to make their hunt easier...including the wdfw. This entire discussion is really about one area...the clockum... close the damn roads and see how many elk are killed!
Post by: krout81 on December 28, 2010, 09:01:44 PM
Post by: bobcat on December 28, 2010, 09:05:19 PM
Post by: Pathfinder101 on December 28, 2010, 09:14:21 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 28, 2010, 09:20:10 PM
I just read on the WDFW website that they do intend to go to permit only elk hunting, statewide, in 2011. Sounds like it's already a done deal.bobcat, can you post a link to that article. I'm looking through it now, but haven't found it.
Post by: krout81 on December 28, 2010, 09:34:55 PM
Post by: krout81 on December 28, 2010, 09:42:49 PM
Turn in hunter report on time and get entered in a special drawing for special permits.
Says they want more info about the reports in order decide on general and permit seasons
http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=dec0610a (http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/release.php?id=dec0610a)
Post by: Sawbuck on December 29, 2010, 06:43:30 AM
I just read on the WDFW website that they do intend to go to permit only elk hunting, statewide, in 2011. Sounds like it's already a done deal.:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
Post by: Buckrub on December 29, 2010, 07:04:58 AM
I just read on the WDFW website that they do intend to go to permit only elk hunting, statewide, in 2011. Sounds like it's already a done deal.:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:stirthepot: :stirthepot: :stirthepot:
My thoughts exactly... :bs:
This state is all about lottery draw... look at last years changes to raffle hunts... all money :bash:
Post by: bchance38 on January 01, 2011, 03:26:59 PM
Post by: granola/hippyslayer on January 01, 2011, 04:20:48 PM
Post by: Greyson on January 05, 2011, 06:11:40 AM
I just read on the WDFW website that they do intend to go to permit only elk hunting, statewide, in 2011. Sounds like it's already a done deal.
Where did you see this? I just looked through the WDFW website and saw no mention of statewide permit only elk hunting. This is a huge change in management policy. The state never does anything this quickly. Let's not get our knickers in a twist until there is something to really get upset about.
Post by: trophyhunt on January 05, 2011, 06:55:03 AM
Post by: bobcat on January 05, 2011, 07:26:16 AM
Bobcat is just messing with you.... no change has happened. I have to admit it was startling when I first read it, that was a good one.
:chuckle: Thanks...
Post by: iRem on January 05, 2011, 09:36:23 AM