Post by: Coweemanslayer on June 23, 2011, 08:51:08 AM
I saw somebody post a stat a while back about last year's results in the Toutle. 25 spikes were shot!!! :bash: This really confuses me a lot. Why do we have people complaining that there are few quality hunts in WA but we have hunter's out there willing to shoot anything that has four legs. Last time I checked shooting a spike is like shooting a fawn. I guess I grew up with the mentality that I was out in the woods to be with my family experiencing good people and trying to get a chance at a nice animal. If I didn't get something well then at least it was a good time. At this point it seems like people are so concerned about getting that freezer full instead of enjoying what counts and that's being out in the outdoors. I can fully understand taking down a 3X3 but guys come on---SPIKES. Let's let these guys get bigger so everybody can start seeing some bigger bulls in these areas. I want to know what you guys all think about this topic.
Post by: bucklucky on June 23, 2011, 09:02:05 AM
Post by: Alan K on June 23, 2011, 09:08:48 AM
I think it's just guys holding out for a good bull as long as they can stand with their 'quality' tag, then choosing to take some meat home. . . Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. People are 'taking theirs' while they have drawn the tag regardless of size. They might think a little differently if they knew they'd be hunting it the next year or even in the next couple years, but the draw odds just don't allow that unless you're extremely lucky.
Also, you could argue they shouldn't shoot anything less than a good 5x5 if they truly wanted the bulls to get to trophy status. Shooting them as spikes or first year branched bulls doesn't make a difference. :dunno:
The game department could easily increase the point restriction to 5 point and the quality would boom in a couple years. It would just suck for everyone who was drawing as the bulls grew for the year or two. I don't think this would be a bad idea for permit areas where indians don't hunt.
Post by: Coweemanslayer on June 23, 2011, 09:11:46 AM
Post by: Coweemanslayer on June 23, 2011, 09:14:53 AM
Spikes used to be 80%+ of what got shot when it was any bull on the west side, and they're the vast majority of what fill tags on the east side. . . .
I think it's just guys holding out for a good bull as long as they can stand with their 'quality' tag, then choosing to take some meat home. . . Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. People are 'taking theirs' while they have drawn the tag regardless of size. They might think a little differently if they knew they'd be hunting it the next year or even in the next couple years, but the draw odds just don't allow that unless you're extremely lucky.
Also, you could argue they shouldn't shoot anything less than a good 5x5 if they truly wanted the bulls to get to trophy status. Shooting them as spikes or first year branched bulls doesn't make a difference. :dunno:
The game department could easily increase the point restriction to 5 point and the quality would boom in a couple years. It would just suck for everyone who was drawing as the bulls grew for the year or two. I don't think this would be a bad idea for permit areas where indians don't hunt.
I would love for them to change it to 5 point or better. I do see your point about spike or branched though. I guess I'm just tired of lazy road hunters on the westside of the state.
Post by: TikkaT3-270Shortmag on June 23, 2011, 09:19:22 AM
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 09:25:07 AM
not having hunted the area myself, and these were permits, could they have been "spike" permits ? or I could understand "any Elk" permit , for a meat hunter...
.........................................
on a different note, lets talk population dynamics, as in bull/cow ratio, and breeding..
In a healthy Elk herd you want to have 15-20 bulls for every 100 cows, and according to what I have read Toutle runs closer to 30-35..(?) :dunno:
In order for proper breeding, you want the genes of the stronger bulls passed on to the stronger cows, so in essence, you want the older, more mature animals doing the breeding.
With close to 1/3 of the animals being bulls, a significant portion are going to be yearling, and 1-4 year old bulls, and the younger bulls will be doing most of the breeding, as the "herd bull" will spend a lot of time and energy chasing off competitors, "satellite" bulls will sneak in, get-r-dun, and get out.
If that bull happens to be a spike, (not fully developed) or have "spike genes" (as in will probably be a spike forever, or at least until 4-5 yo) then his offspring will have that same gene.
In order to bread "quality" animals, you have to reduce the number of "inferior" genes in the pool, ie; remove spikes and rag-horns, to allow the bulls with desirable characteristics to pass on their genes.
All elk are not born equal, if you only shoot the larger antlered adults, or just the ones with mass and symmetry, that gene will gradually be thinned out.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 09:25:44 AM
Spikes used to be 80%+ of what got shot when it was any bull on the west side, and they're the vast majority of what fill tags on the east side. . . .
I think it's just guys holding out for a good bull as long as they can stand with their 'quality' tag, then choosing to take some meat home. . . Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. People are 'taking theirs' while they have drawn the tag regardless of size. They might think a little differently if they knew they'd be hunting it the next year or even in the next couple years, but the draw odds just don't allow that unless you're extremely lucky.
Also, you could argue they shouldn't shoot anything less than a good 5x5 if they truly wanted the bulls to get to trophy status. Shooting them as spikes or first year branched bulls doesn't make a difference. :dunno:
The game department could easily increase the point restriction to 5 point and the quality would boom in a couple years. It would just suck for everyone who was drawing as the bulls grew for the year or two. I don't think this would be a bad idea for permit areas where indians don't hunt.
I would love for them to change it to 5 point or better. I do see your point about spike or branched though. I guess I'm just tired of lazy road hunters on the westside of the state.
All you have to do to not see Road hunters is don't hunt the roads. All you have to do to not see Tribal Hunting is not hunt Public land, and pretty much where there are roads. Hunt private land. If you want really Big Bulls go to Arizona. I believe it is a Tribal Reservation that offers very quality hunts. But maybe I am wrong?
Washington has the potential for World Class Hunting. What I see however is a Department that does not have an interest in Managing GAME. If we want to really have a department that manages huntable species for human harvest then we need to push for a reestablishment of a department of GAME. Right now we have a department of PETA. :twocents:
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 09:29:01 AM
:jacked:
Now I see this thread going all sideways..
Quote
I guess I'm just tired of lazy road hunters on the westside of the state.
Quote
All you have to do to not see Road hunters is don't hunt the roads. All you have to do to not see Tribal Hunting is not hunt Public land, and pretty much where there are roads. Hunt private land. If you want really Big Bulls go to Arizona. I believe it is a Tribal Reservation that offers very quality hunts. But maybe I am wrong?
Washington has the potential for World Class Hunting. What I see however is a Department that does not have an interest in Managing GAME. If we want to really have a department that manages huntable species for human harvest then we need to push for a reestablishment of a department of GAME. Right now we have a department of PETA.
Post by: MADMAX on June 23, 2011, 09:33:11 AM
I would shoot a spike before I ate my tag.
I enjoy elk meat.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 09:43:29 AM
I have chased some 300+ bulls in the Manastash, while "road hunters" drove right on by, air conditioner and radio running (East side, by the way)
Also stood 10 feet off a road on the west-side and had them drive by w/o seeing anything either, road hunting is a statewide issue.
The WDFW has an issue of attempting to please those that only want to hunt, those that only want meat, and those that want a "quality" hunt,
You can please some of the people, but not all of them.
If you want a quality animal, you have to put out the effort.
What I see and hear is representative of our society today, hunters want to go hunting and expect to be able to harvest a "trophy", yet putting the effort into actually hunting one is too hard :'(
Blame the WDFW, blame the "roadhunters", blame anybody they can because of limited opportunnity (they are not behind every tree), but if you do your research, put in the time, apply for permits, pass on the first one or two, you might get what you want, or you might not, that is why it is called "hunting" and not "shopping"
Post by: MADMAX on June 23, 2011, 09:45:54 AM
Trust me although I enjoy driving up the road in my truck I have no problem getting out and hiking or Mt biking.
I'm going on 53 and hunt with kids in their 20s most of the time.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 09:57:51 AM
There are "quality" animals in almost every unit in Washington, spend a little time scouting during the off season and you see them sometimes.
I have chased some 300+ bulls in the Manastash, while "road hunters" drove right on by, air conditioner and radio running (East side, by the way)
Also stood 10 feet off a road on the west-side and had them drive by w/o seeing anything either, road hunting is a statewide issue.
The WDFW has an issue of attempting to please those that only want to hunt, those that only want meat, and those that want a "quality" hunt,
You can please some of the people, but not all of them.
If you want a quality animal, you have to put out the effort.
What I see and hear is representative of our society today, hunters want to go hunting and expect to be able to harvest a "trophy", yet putting the effort into actually hunting one is too hard :'(
Blame the WDFW, blame the "roadhunters", blame anybody they can because of limited opportunnity (they are not behind every tree), but if you do your research, put in the time, apply for permits, pass on the first one or two, you might get what you want, or you might not, that is why it is called "hunting" and not "shopping"
I agree with everything you said. I also do not see how simply stating that for those who do not like sharing the public land with other users then move to private land. For a little more money people can hunt their method and standards to their hearts content. They can manage the land for better opportunity. Lots of hunt club have antler restrictions. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining. Or, is there something wrong with that?
My point with the WDFW is it is not the IF&G. People need to undertand that.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 10:02:06 AM
Well saidI enjoy driving/riding also, but during hunting season I cannot stay awake in a vehicle, I usually get up 3:30 or 4:00 and hunt on foot until after dark (8:00 PM), when I take a break and decide to do a little "scouting" my eyes just wont stay in focus looking out a window, they start to cross and other :dunno: weird stuff.
Trust me although I enjoy driving up the road in my truck I have no problem getting out and hiking or Mt biking.
I'm going on 53 and hunt with kids in their 20s most of the time.
I also am not a "trophy" hunter, any legal animal is a "Trophy" to me.
I just have trouble finding anyone to hunt with, as hiking/hunting all day means they miss Bacon, eggs, and pancakes in camp and hanging around telling stories, shooting targets, roving stump-shoots, etc...
Then of course there is lunch and dinner..... (good cook at camp)
I live off coffee and a quick breakfast before light, pack a lunch and snacks, then hope for leftovers when I get back...
Post by: TheHunt on June 23, 2011, 10:10:19 AM
Lets say next year it is 4 point or better. Run that for a couple of years then bump it up to 5 point or better then leave it there.
The meat hunters could still wack cows since we have cow tags. But this would provide better breeding stock and a better bull to cow ratio.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 10:19:31 AM
Quote
I agree with everything you said. I also do not see how simply stating that for those who do not like sharing the public land with other users then move to private land. For a little more money people can hunt their method and standards to their hearts content. They can manage the land for better opportunity. Lots of hunt club have antler restrictions. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining. Or, is there something wrong with that?Nothing wrong with what you said, but remember we are in Washington, almost all the Elk live either on public land or "Private" Timber company land. There are a few large ranches, but they have either gone permit, or are in a permit GMU already.
As far as "pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining" comparing Arizona to Washington, yes there is some good hunting on tribal lands in AZ, but that is not the only area, also, is is a source of revenue for the tribe (I dont think they have casino's), and the real reason, HABITAT, Washington has potential, but no comparison to Arizona.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 10:22:03 AM
I do like that idea of restriction of three point or better being bumped up.In my opinion would be better to make it 4 point MAXIMUM, then switch to 5 point minimum to get the genes established.
Lets say next year it is 4 point or better. Run that for a couple of years then bump it up to 5 point or better then leave it there.
The meat hunters could still wack cows since we have cow tags. But this would provide better breeding stock and a better bull to cow ratio.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 23, 2011, 11:08:54 AM
QuoteI agree with everything you said. I also do not see how simply stating that for those who do not like sharing the public land with other users then move to private land. For a little more money people can hunt their method and standards to their hearts content. They can manage the land for better opportunity. Lots of hunt club have antler restrictions. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining. Or, is there something wrong with that?Nothing wrong with what you said, but remember we are in Washington, almost all the Elk live either on public land or "Private" Timber company land. There are a few large ranches, but they have either gone permit, or are in a permit GMU already.
As far as "pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining" comparing Arizona to Washington, yes there is some good hunting on tribal lands in AZ, but that is not the only area, also, is is a source of revenue for the tribe (I dont think they have casino's), and the real reason, HABITAT, Washington has potential, but no comparison to Arizona.
Now this is what I like reading about. Reading this topic has proven to me what I have been saying on here and what I have been saying around my area. We need a Stronger Regulatory Commission for Game Management and we could in my mind compete with Arizona and other Tribes in the Western US for Trophy animals.
We have the resources to support Quality Animals but not the Rules or Regulations to support it. I have been saying this for quite a while around my area and now it seems that I'm not the only one talking about it.
There is a lot of Tribes besides Arizona that offer Trophy Hunting and if you want to see what's out there look up huntingtherez.com or check out their facebook page titled the same thing and you can read stories from hunts and see a lot of good pictures.
This magazine is geared towards everybody not just Tribal members and it showcases a lot of good hunting packages on Tribal Lands for Non-Tribal members as well. I encourage everybody just to check it out and you can make up your own mind about it. Again all the hunts in this magazine are for Tribal and Non-Tribal Hunters.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 11:18:51 AM
QuoteI agree with everything you said. I also do not see how simply stating that for those who do not like sharing the public land with other users then move to private land. For a little more money people can hunt their method and standards to their hearts content. They can manage the land for better opportunity. Lots of hunt club have antler restrictions. Nothing wrong with it. Nothing wrong with pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining. Or, is there something wrong with that?Nothing wrong with what you said, but remember we are in Washington, almost all the Elk live either on public land or "Private" Timber company land. There are a few large ranches, but they have either gone permit, or are in a permit GMU already.
As far as "pointing out Quality Tribal Management instead of only complaining" comparing Arizona to Washington, yes there is some good hunting on tribal lands in AZ, but that is not the only area, also, is is a source of revenue for the tribe (I dont think they have casino's), and the real reason, HABITAT, Washington has potential, but no comparison to Arizona.
Now this is what I like reading about. Reading this topic has proven to me what I have been saying on here and what I have been saying around my area. We need a Stronger Regulatory Commission for Game Management and we could in my mind compete with Arizona and other Tribes in the Western US for Trophy animals.
We have the resources to support Quality Animals but not the Rules or Regulations to support it. I have been saying this for quite a while around my area and now it seems that I'm not the only one talking about it.
There is a lot of Tribes besides Arizona that offer Trophy Hunting and if you want to see what's out there look up huntingtherez.com or check out their facebook page titled the same thing and you can read stories from hunts and see a lot of good pictures.
This magazine is geared towards everybody not just Tribal members and it showcases a lot of good hunting packages on Tribal Lands for Non-Tribal members as well. I encourage everybody just to check it out and you can make up your own mind about it. Again all the hunts in this magazine are for Tribal and Non-Tribal Hunters.
:yeah:
Post by: piledup on June 23, 2011, 12:06:59 PM
It seems to me that other Quality hunt areas have pretty nice bulls to me :chuckle:
I'm getting off topic here, back to you guys. :)
Post by: bucklucky on June 23, 2011, 12:25:52 PM
Post by: TheHunt on June 23, 2011, 12:53:11 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 01:07:14 PM
I know this will make people mad but I would like the entire state to go draw only with a few units at 5 point or better with no spikes taken.
Yeah, eliminating 90% or more of the hunters would solve a lot of the issues in this State. It would please the anti's, tribes, purists, and WDFW could just pay "designated agents" to dispatch nuisance animals. Kind of like one big "National Park." That would have a lot of support in this State.
Post by: TheHunt on June 23, 2011, 01:17:12 PM
Post by: Coweemanslayer on June 23, 2011, 01:33:56 PM
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 01:53:20 PM
I'm thinking this topic got a little off on a tangent. Anyways, there was a lot of interesting opinions and things I learned. I do agree that making the westside a 4pt minimum would drastically help. Plus, maybe coming up with a spike only tag would be efficient. I think when they give out 210+ tags in an area and people know they can shoot spikes last resort it's not helping the herds and it's for sure not herd management. I understand that certain spikes and three points have bad genes and some need to go but there are a lot of quality young bulls being shot. For the people that want meet in the freezer that's why there are cow tags. Don't get me wrong either I've shot 3 points and for some people that is a trophy and I would totally agree it is. I just think that some of these areas need some help so we can get some bigger bulls running around instead of all rag horn 3 points.
They give more tags and we complain, they reduce tags and we complain, spike/antler restriction's and we complain. How about we push for a "Game Department?" Or, I agree, take 95% of the people out of the equation and end General Hunting. That seems to be what people really want. You will have the support to push for it.
Post by: WA hunter14 on June 23, 2011, 01:58:39 PM
Post by: The100Road on June 23, 2011, 02:12:26 PM
Post by: Coweemanslayer on June 23, 2011, 02:55:10 PM
I'm thinking this topic got a little off on a tangent. Anyways, there was a lot of interesting opinions and things I learned. I do agree that making the westside a 4pt minimum would drastically help. Plus, maybe coming up with a spike only tag would be efficient. I think when they give out 210+ tags in an area and people know they can shoot spikes last resort it's not helping the herds and it's for sure not herd management. I understand that certain spikes and three points have bad genes and some need to go but there are a lot of quality young bulls being shot. For the people that want meet in the freezer that's why there are cow tags. Don't get me wrong either I've shot 3 points and for some people that is a trophy and I would totally agree it is. I just think that some of these areas need some help so we can get some bigger bulls running around instead of all rag horn 3 points.
They give more tags and we complain, they reduce tags and we complain, spike/antler restriction's and we complain. How about we push for a "Game Department?" Or, I agree, take 95% of the people out of the equation and end General Hunting. That seems to be what people really want. You will have the support to push for it.
I agree! What a complainer.... :IBCOOL:
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 02:57:47 PM
yea you guys should stop talking about it so the wrong person doesnt read it an think its a good idea an make it their next goal in life :chuckle:
What makes you think some people who post here don't have that agenda?
Post by: Green Lantern on June 23, 2011, 05:40:52 PM
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2011, 05:55:30 PM
I know this will make people mad but I would like the entire state to go draw only with a few units at 5 point or better with no spikes taken.Boy that would make the tribes very happy, way less non tribal guys in the woods to witness there slaughters. My 2cents, Bad Idea.
Post by: grundy53 on June 23, 2011, 06:23:57 PM
Post by: nontypical176 on June 23, 2011, 06:35:24 PM
The bull I took last year out of the Toutle unit was a 3x4 and I suspect atleast a 3 year old by body/horn size and looking at the 2 year old raghorns some of my friends shot in the general unit. He had a dozen cows with him but looked like a scared elk after hearing my bugle. The cows were more interested in coming to my bugle than he was. I didn't have much time to hunt or I would have held out longer. Pretty sure we'll start seeing more large bulls throughout the toutle/margaret. Just my opinion.
I say make them both or atleast the toutle unit a general hunt 3 point or better. The unit is huge and if it weren't for the darn mountain eruption it would probably still be in the general hunt category. 3 point or better for elk good, 4 point or better bad. If a bull hasn't wised up by his second year, he deserves to be dinner.
Post by: trophyhunt on June 23, 2011, 06:36:33 PM
Post by: True Sportsman on June 23, 2011, 06:44:13 PM
Spikes used to be 80%+ of what got shot when it was any bull on the west side, and they're the vast majority of what fill tags on the east side. . . .
I think it's just guys holding out for a good bull as long as they can stand with their 'quality' tag, then choosing to take some meat home. . . Nothing wrong with that in my opinion. People are 'taking theirs' while they have drawn the tag regardless of size. They might think a little differently if they knew they'd be hunting it the next year or even in the next couple years, but the draw odds just don't allow that unless you're extremely lucky.
Also, you could argue they shouldn't shoot anything less than a good 5x5 if they truly wanted the bulls to get to trophy status. Shooting them as spikes or first year branched bulls doesn't make a difference. :dunno:
The game department could easily increase the point restriction to 5 point and the quality would boom in a couple years. It would just suck for everyone who was drawing as the bulls grew for the year or two. I don't think this would be a bad idea for permit areas where indians don't hunt.
I would love for them to change it to 5 point or better. I do see your point about spike or branched though. I guess I'm just tired of lazy road hunters on the westside of the state.
I road hunt for deer. Sometimes, I am really lazy. A couple years ago, I road hunted my ass off and shot a nice buck. I've road hunted for elk but haven't sealed the deal yet. It's only a matter of time before I dump one from the truck...
Post by: hub on June 23, 2011, 08:42:17 PM
Post by: Deer slayer on June 23, 2011, 08:43:34 PM
Isn't Quality hunt and Toutle an oxymoron? :chuckle: I've never seen a quality bull 350+ come out of the toutle or Mararet on this site or in person. My friends have hunted the winston unit for 30+ years and taken many bulls, nothing over 260. In fact some of the smallest 6 points I've ever seen and those elk are from the same gene pool.Roosevelt vs Rocky Mountains. Not many 350 roosevelts walk the earth.
Post by: STIKNSTRINGBOW on June 23, 2011, 09:07:39 PM
Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 10:07:21 PM
Also comparing Washington to "other" states, like Arizona is ridiculous,
Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.
Would it be a bad thing if Tribes Managed Game? What if they Managed it for Trophy hunts that Non-Tribal could participate? Would that be so bad? The more I look at it I have more values in line with them than I do with Olympia. I know it's a leap but when I look at the big picture, they are not the problem.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 23, 2011, 10:07:56 PM
The problem I have with going to a 4 or five point minimum is identification. If you hunt the brush like I do then you know how frustrating this would be. Right now we have to tell (sometimes in a split second) if it's a spike or if it has an Eye guard and one fork above the ears. That is sometimes tough to do. I've had bulls that presented perfect shots but because their head was behind some vine maples or a big fir etc. I had to pass the shot. I could tell it had horns but I couldn't tell if it was legal. If you up the point requirements it will take a vastly longer time compared to what we do know. Depending on angle, size, vegetation, and so on. Success rate would go WAY down and the number of dead bulls left to rot would go WAY up. To me this would be a VERY poor Idea. There are already enough spikes left to rot every year. That number would go up infinitely. All this for very little difference in trophy production. This is saying nothing about the fact that about half of the bulls on the westside would never grow more then 4 points on either side no matter what was done to help. It would end up like the mulies in eastern Washington (Except on a MUCH larger scale). A bunch of large 2 points (4 points in this case) doing a large share of the breading and never getting weeded out of the gene pool. I'm sorry for the rambling response but I just think this is such a horrible Idea I can't even think straight. Sorry.:yeah:
Post by: Kowsrule30 on June 23, 2011, 10:18:00 PM
I would like to see the state go to three point minimum for deer and elk on both the wet side and the east side. To me the game dept. is wasting my tax dollars managing hunters and not the game. I cannot believe that it is ok to draw a bull tag say in the 360 and be allowed to take a spike. Hunters that have a general tag should have dibbs on all the spikes every year. There odds would still be well below the odds for a branch antler animal for tag holders. There is plenty of back country for trophy hunters to go get the big ones. The east side season should be moved to start the 2nd week of november like it used to be so hunters have a better chance at catching a migration. All the road restrictions and closed gates on public land should be removed. The point system sucks and is worthless. Waiting 5 to 10 years to draw a quality tag is rediculous. I say open this state back up to hunters and the hunting tradition and stop all this tag draw stuff. Mange the game by reducing the length of the seasons when necessary due to low numbers. There is no way that spike only elk for the east side is necessary for more than three years in row. Too bad the game rich state of Wash. is ran by a bunch of anti hunting college educated anti hunting idiots.
Your're playing with gasoline...... Don't light the match!!!!! There are road closures for a reason.... To protect habitat/the animals/ and get off your ass and hunt..... Some places are so roaded you'll be able to chase them from road to road while in between waiting for them to come back ..... Or another herd.... Do what you do....
Post by: Crunchy on June 23, 2011, 10:27:46 PM
Post by: deerslyr on June 23, 2011, 10:55:43 PM
And whats with all of the same guys STILL hating on road hunting? You act like you want everyone to get out of there truck and actually hunt, do you know how many people would be in the woods if that happened? I like to keep the woods the way they are now, ALL TO MYSELF. I dont understand how it could bother you one bit if you guys were actually out "roughin it" because youd never see the road hunters, the only time you'd see them is if you were out on the road yourself.
Post by: RadSav on June 24, 2011, 02:24:28 AM
Managing a "Quality Bull" unit and a general hunting unit are quite different things. While it is important to set point restriction standards in a general hunting area it is not required within a limited access/tag area. Except in very unique situations point restrictions are imposed to limit game harvests while allowing everyone a chance. Quality Bull units limit game harvest by limiting how many have a chance. The "Quality Bull" label is more closely related to the hunting experience and the number of bulls within that unit than the size and weight of those bulls within the unit.
I agree that sometimes the WDFW head counts are fictitious. And tags available seem extreme. But, without us hunters paying for the US Geological Survey guys to do this for the state - it is what it is. The Toutle unit is a Huge Unit with really no major population or agriculture and a tremendous number of animals. The Wenaha units in comparison are small and the number of animals are far fewer than the Toutle. The reason for the larger bulls in the Wenaha is not the number of issued tags and definitely not because of spike harvest restrictions. Last I checked both Wenaha East and West were "Any Bull".
I think a lot of the guys posting on here have been watching too much TV. Though Washington does get the occasional "Big Bull" we are not a big bull state. Furthermore the Rocky Mountain Bulls of the Wenaha are quite a bit different than the Cascade Roosevelt bulls of the Toutle and Margaret. With the different vegetation and thickness of cover even if the genes were the same it would still be oranges to tangerines.
The second addition of the WA Big Game Records was printed, I think, in 2005. As of that date we only had one typical bull listed above 400 BC. And, in all user groups combined we only had 16 typical Cascade Rosie and 52 typical Rockies over 350. Compare that to Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico and Arizona. To them I guess not only should quality bull / toutle be an oxymoron, but so should Washington Quality Bull in general.
Finally, I would love to see everyone stay in their trucks and cruise the roads for spikes. Aaah, just imagine! I would have all the woods to myself. I'd never have to wonder if the answer I got from my bugle was a bull or another hunter. I'd never have a stalk ruined by another hunter. I could see huge numbers of big Washington bulls per day. And, I could tell everyone how much better I am than they are. So keep road hunting and shooting spikes - I'd appreciate it very much. :chuckle:
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2011, 05:19:49 AM
Yes it would be a very bad thing to have tribes manage OUR game. I wonder just how much they would charge ''Whitey'' to hunt on there land. I totally dissagree with you on this one, I don't think it would go over very well at all.Also comparing Washington to "other" states, like Arizona is ridiculous,
Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.
Would it be a bad thing if Tribes Managed Game? What if they Managed it for Trophy hunts that Non-Tribal could participate? Would that be so bad? The more I look at it I have more values in line with them than I do with Olympia. I know it's a leap but when I look at the big picture, they are not the problem.
Post by: Wenatcheejay on June 24, 2011, 08:26:08 AM
Yes it would be a very bad thing to have tribes manage OUR game. I wonder just how much they would charge ''Whitey'' to hunt on there land. I totally dissagree with you on this one, I don't think it would go over very well at all.Also comparing Washington to "other" states, like Arizona is ridiculous,
Washington is the third smallest state west of the Mississippi,
and Washington has 27 recognized Indian reservations totaling 2,250,731 acres.
Washington has 81,483 Indian tribal members.
.Arizona, among all the states, has the largest percentage of its land set aside and designated as Indian lands.
More than 19 million acres of land belongs to the twenty reservations and over 250000 Indian tribal members.
If the "natives owned half of Washington, you can bet that they would be managing the Elk population for revenue, and we all would be applying for permits, and paying access fees.
Would it be a bad thing if Tribes Managed Game? What if they Managed it for Trophy hunts that Non-Tribal could participate? Would that be so bad? The more I look at it I have more values in line with them than I do with Olympia. I know it's a leap but when I look at the big picture, they are not the problem.
Agreed. So, pushing for our Agency to better manage State Owned Game is a better solution? (I'd agree, that was always my option A.)
I agree, desire to increase antler size is a reasonable goal. As others have said, GMU 556, really that whole area is not really "Trophy habitat Area." So, if the solution is to push for horn size that will not be, the result will be lot of camping with guns. Then, special interests will cull the herd. I simply don't want to see this cycle continue much less increased. I like the 3pt on the Westside. :twocents:
Post by: PlateauNDN on June 24, 2011, 09:13:43 AM
[/b]I know this will make people mad but I would like the entire state to go draw only with a few units at 5 point or better with no spikes taken.Boy that would make the tribes very happy, way less non tribal guys in the woods to witness there slaughters. My 2cents, Bad Idea.
Really?! You really want to take this thread off course with comments like this? Why not keep this thread on the main subject and keep stuff like this out of it. This IS a really good thread so please don't take it off course with uncalled for comments like this.
As I've stated before our State has potential and if it were to be run in a better fashion then it could produce some very good, quality bulls. I'm not saying the Tribes should do it or anyone in particular, I'm just saying if someone would invest the time and resources this State could.
As for the Tribe managing its own lands more efficiently it's also possible. With the resources, land base, financing, enforcement and knowledge of how to accomplish this then yes, the Yakamas could compete on a National level with other Tribes for quality bulls. If the Tribe was like many others and allowed for special permit hunting within its borders for quality bulls then why not? More quality hunts for hunters and added revenue for the Tribe to improve wildlife habitat and management.
I don't know why it's not being explored now but the future is fast approaching and I would sure love to be here when/if this happens.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on June 24, 2011, 11:47:07 AM
Post by: RadSav on June 24, 2011, 02:54:08 PM
I really don't have a problem with the size of the animals in this state....sometimes I wish they were smaller when packing out the pieces. Like stated above, the tag notes (pg 43)...Hunters can expect lower than average hunter densities, greater potential for success, or good timing during these hunts. Nothing about minimum BC/PY scores. From the annual harvest data (kill stats), the success rate for elk seems to hover around 9% anyways (legal). I don't agree with having to lower overall success for everyone so that a small group can get slightly bigger animals.:yeah:
I have a good number of friends in Arizona. Every single one is jealous of our hunting in Washington. Sure they kill big bulls when they get a tag. Most, however, would prefer to hunt elk each year regardless of trophy status and then pay the big bucks if they chose to go after a Big Boy somewhere else.
Grass is always greener - Isn't it?
Post by: trophyhunt on June 24, 2011, 06:02:19 PM
As for the Tribe managing its own lands more efficiently it's also possible. With the resources, land base, financing, enforcement and knowledge of how to accomplish this then yes, the Yakamas could compete on a National level with other Tribes for quality bulls. If the Tribe was like many others and allowed for special permit hunting within its borders for quality bulls then why not? More quality hunts for hunters and added revenue for the Tribe to improve wildlife habitat and management.
I don't know why it's not being explored now but the future is fast approaching and I would sure love to be here when/if this happens.
[/quote]If the Yakima's were smart then they should manage their rez and start producing large elk for sale, then maby they could stop poaching on our land.